Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Report170228001 – BJ’s Wholesale Club at Greyhound Commons BJ’s Wholesale Club at Greyhound Commons Redevelopment Plan 14480 Lowes Way Carmel, IN 46032 Drainage Report Original: March 15, 2023 Revised: June 22, 2023 Prepared For: Kite Realty Group Tony Halsey 30 S. Meridian Street, Suite 1100 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 577-5600 Prepared By: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Connor Strege, PE 250 East 96th Street, Suite 580 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Phone: (317) 218-9560 170228001 – BJ’s Wholesale Club at Greyhound Commons TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0. PROJECT SUMMARY 2.0. INTRODUCTION 3.0. EXISTING CONDITIONS 4.0. PROPOSED CONDITIONS Appendix A: Project Site Maps Appendix B: Existing Drainage Conditions Appendix C: Proposed Basin Conditions Appendix D: Proposed Storm Sewer Design Appendix E: Stormwater Quality Design Appendix F: Excerpts from Existing Drainage Report 170228001 – BJ’s Wholesale Club at Greyhound Commons 1.0 Project Summary Project Name: BJ’s Wholesale Club at Greyhound Commons Location: 14480 Lowes Way, Carmel, IN 46032 Report Type: Drainage Report Reviewing Agency: City of Carmel Storm Sewer Sizing: Rational Method Basin Runoff Calculations: USDA NRCS TR-55 Stormwater Quality: Hydrodynamic Separator Stormwater Quantity: Underground Detention Chambers Design Standards: City of Carmel Stormwater Technical Manual 2.0. Introduction Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. has been retained by Kite Realty Group to provide civil engineering services for the BJ’s Wholesale Club located within Greyhound Commons in Carmel, Indiana. The initial phase of construction for this project consists of the construction of a ±102,984 GSF wholesale retail store and complimentary gas service station with associated utility infrastructure, pavement, and hardscape amenities. An underground detention chamber system shall be installed during construction to replace the two existing ponds to be demolished. This system shall account for the proposed development while preserving existing downstream drainage conditions. The ultimate discharge point from the site is at the northeast corner of the property and ties into the storm infrastructure crossing under Lowes Way to the east. The discharge is ultimately released into the Westfield Farms Legal Drain. Water quality for the project will be provided by proposed hydrodynamic separators. The proposed stormwater quality and quantity measures were designed to meet the requirements of the current City of Carmel Stormwater Technical Manual. 3.0. Existing Conditions FEMA According to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps 18057C0207G and 18057C0226G dated November 19, 2014, provided in Appendix A, the site resides within “Zone X” and “Zone AE” which corresponds to areas determined to be outside of the 0.2% annual chance floodplain and areas determined to be the base floodplain where base flood elevations are provided, respectively. Soil Characteristics Per the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, the site soil consists of Gessie silt loam (Ge), Shoals silt loam (Sh), Urban land-Crosby silt loam complex, fine loamy subsoil (UcfA), Urban land-Miami silt loam complex (UkbB2), Urban land-Miami silt loam complex (UmjC2), Urban land-Sloan silty clay loam, sandy substratum (UsuAV), and Shoals silt loam- Urban land complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes (YshAH). Refer to Appendix A for the NRCS Web Soil Survey information. 170228001 – BJ’s Wholesale Club at Greyhound Commons Existing Site Features The total existing site consists of approximately 10.01 acres located southwest of the intersection of Lowes Way and the West 146th Street. The existing project site contains two restaurants with asphalt paving. The site improvements currently discharge to the north of the project site towards an existing wet pond and existing dry pond. The two existing onsite detention areas are interconnected with an offsite wet pond to the east, across Lowes Way (“Pond 3”). The interconnected ponds ultimately discharge from “Pond 3” towards Westfield Farms Legal Drain to the south. The existing developments were previously modeled within an existing Drainage Report dated 12/03/2003 by American Consulting, Inc. The existing drainage model was recreated with the latest ICPR software utilizing the City of Carmel’s latest rainfall events to accurately model existing conditions (Refer to Appendix F for additional information). The table below indicates key outputs from the recreated drainage model for the 10-, and 100-year storm events using ICPR 4 Stormwater Modeling (Refer to Appendix B for existing drainage calculations). Existing Drainage Model Summary 010-year 100-year Peak Discharge Entering Pond 3 76.17 cfs 110.28 cfs Peak Discharge Entering Legal Drain 23.48 cfs 28.54 cfs Pond 3 HWEL 811.42 812.89 4.0. Proposed Conditions For the development of the 10.01 acres of commercial property, proposed on-site private storm inlets and sewers have been designed to carry site drainage from the pavement, roof, and grassed areas to an underground detention chamber system to the north of the site, before ultimately discharging into existing storm sewer infrastructure under Lowe’s Way. Refer to Appendix C for a proposed drainage area map. Refer to Appendix D for a proposed storm sewer drainage area map. Per discussions with the City of Carmel, onsite stormwater detention shall be provided to ensure existing conditions are maintained following the redevelopment of the site and demolition of the existing onsite wet and dry ponds. The Table below summarizes the allowable and proposed design values using the SCS Curve Number method and ICPR 4 modeling, in addition to the Detention Design Summary (Refer to Appendix C for calculations). Proposed Drainage Model Summary Allowable 010-year Proposed 010-year Allowable 100-year Proposed 100-year Peak Discharge Entering Pond 3 76.17 cfs 43.52 cfs 110.28 cfs 91.31 cfs Peak Discharge Entering Legal Drain 23.48 cfs 22.77 cfs 28.54 cfs 28.00 cfs Pond 3 HWEL 811.42 811.18 812.89 812.71 170228001 – BJ’s Wholesale Club at Greyhound Commons Proposed Detention Summary StormTech MC-4500 – 7’-6”) Base Inv. 810.80 Chamber Inv. 811.55 10-Yr HWEL 814.43 100-Yr HWEL 817.29 Top of Chamber 816.55 Top of Stone 817.55 Emergency Overflow (Rim Surcharge) 818.50 90% Drawdown Time 16.75 hours Storage Required 3.15 ac-ft Storage Provided 3.23 ac-ft WQv (D1) 7.03 cfs WQv (D32) 0.27 cfs WQv (D40) 2.68 cfs Stormwater Quality Per the City of Carmel’s Stormwater Technical Standards, Water Quality BMPs are required to treat the 1” rainfall event. Site runoff shall be treated by a hydrodynamic separator prior to underground detention, and isolator rows within the underground detention. Refer to Appendix E for Stormwater Quality Calculations. Per discussions with the City of Carmel, additional measures have been implemented to contain any potential fuel spills within the fueling canopy and the UGST loading area. Storm sewer draining these areas shall be provided as a separate system that will be routed through an oil water separator, automatic oil stop valve, Aqua-Swirl, Aqua-Filter, and manual valve. Additionally, the UGST loading area has been shown as a contained area featuring back-to-back 4” rolled curbs, providing an additional factor of safety. Refer to the construction drawings for additional information. Existing Downstream Conditions Field investigation performed 05/09/2023 shows the existing facilities downstream of the proposed underground detention to be in acceptable condition. Photographic records have been included within Appendix C. Detention modeling includes a model evaluating the impact of dynamic tailwater conditions in the 100-year event. State/Federal Water Quality Permits The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) Construction Stormwater General Permit (CSGP) will be required for this project. 170228001 – BJ’s Wholesale Club at Greyhound Commons Conclusions The proposed drainage design for this project has been designed to meet or improve the existing detention conditions. No adverse impacts are anticipated to affect any adjacent or downstream properties. 170228001 – BJ’s Wholesale Club at Greyhound Commons Appendix A: Project Site Maps PROJECT SITE National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250 Feet Ü SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99 With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mileZone X Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood HazardZone X Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes.Zone X Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X Area of Undetermined Flood HazardZone D Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer Levee, Dike, or Floodwall Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17.5 Water Surface Elevation Coastal Transect Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Effective LOMRs Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available Unmapped This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 2/16/2023 at 1:59 PM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. Legend OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD OTHER AREAS GENERAL STRUCTURES OTHER FEATURES MAP PANELS 8 B 20.2 The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location. 1:6,000 86°7'43"W 40°N 86°7'5"W 39°59'33"N Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery: Data refreshed October, 2020 Hydrologic Soil Group—Hamilton County, Indiana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 2/21/2023 Page 1 of 444275904427630442767044277104427750442779044278304427870442791044279504427590442763044276704427710442775044277904427830442787044279104427950574640574680574720574760574800574840574880574920 574640 574680 574720 574760 574800 574840 574880 574920 39° 59' 55'' N 86° 7' 32'' W39° 59' 55'' N86° 7' 20'' W39° 59' 42'' N 86° 7' 32'' W39° 59' 42'' N 86° 7' 20'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 16N WGS84 0 50 100 200 300 Feet 0 25 50 100 150 Meters Map Scale: 1:1,920 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,800. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Hamilton County, Indiana Survey Area Data: Version 23, Sep 3, 2022 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jun 15, 2022—Jun 21, 2022 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Hydrologic Soil Group—Hamilton County, Indiana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 2/21/2023 Page 2 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Ge Gessie silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded, brief duration B 0.7 3.8% Sh Shoals silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded, brief duration B/D 0.7 3.9% UcfA Urban land-Crosby silt loam complex, fine- loamy subsoil, 0 to 2 percent slopes 4.8 27.7% UkbB2 Urban land-Miami silt loam complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded 7.3 42.1% UmjC2 Urban land-Miami silt loam complex, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded 0.1 0.3% UsuAV Urban land-Sloan silty clay loam, sandy substratum, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded, very brief duration B/D 1.2 7.0% YshAH Shoals silt loam-Urban land complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded, brief duration B/D 2.6 15.3% Totals for Area of Interest 17.3 100.0% Hydrologic Soil Group—Hamilton County, Indiana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 2/21/2023 Page 3 of 4 Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Hydrologic Soil Group—Hamilton County, Indiana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 2/21/2023 Page 4 of 4 170228001 – BJ’s Wholesale Club at Greyhound Commons Appendix B: Existing Basin Conditions March 14, 2023 BJ'S WHOLESALE CLUB AT GREYHOUND COMMONS EXISTING BASINS MAP NOT TO SCALE BASIN MAP AS SHOWN WITHIN AMERICAN CONSULTING, INC. DRAINAGE REPORT DATED 12/03/2023. CN AND Tc VALUES PREVIOUSLY REPORTED HAVE BEEN UTILIZED. REFER TO APPENDIX F FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. ICPR MODEL - EXISTING CONDITIONS NODE DIAGRAM 1 C:\Users\connor.strege\Desktop\ICPR Projects\170228001\2023-03-15_Existing\3/13/2023 19:02 Simulation: 010 YR - 24 HR Scenario:Scenario1 Run Date/Time:3/13/2023 7:01:36 PM Program Version:ICPR4 4.07.04 General Run Mode:Normal Year Month Day Hour [hr] Start Time:0 0 0 0.0000 End Time:0 0 0 60.0000 Hydrology [sec]Surface Hydraulics [sec] Groundwater [sec] Min Calculation Time:60.0000 1.0000 900.0000 Max Calculation Time:30.0000 Output Time Increments Hydrology Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min] 0 0 0 0.0000 15.0000 Surface Hydraulics Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min] 0 0 0 0.0000 15.0000 Groundwater Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min] 0 0 0 0.0000 60.0000 Restart File Save Restart:False Resources & Lookup Tables Resources Lookup Tables Rainfall Folder:Boundary Stage Set: Reference ET Folder:Extern Hydrograph Set: Unit Hydrograph Folder: Curve Number Set: Green-Ampt Set: Vertical Layers Set: Impervious Set: Roughness Set: Crop Coef Set: Fillable Porosity Set: EXISTING CONDITIONS ICPR REPORT Page 1 of 16 2 C:\Users\connor.strege\Desktop\ICPR Projects\170228001\2023-03-15_Existing\3/13/2023 19:02 Conductivity Set: Leakage Set: Tolerances & Options Time Marching:SAOR IA Recovery Time:24.0000 hr Max Iterations:6 ET for Manual Basins:False Over-Relax Weight Fact: 0.5 dec dZ Tolerance:0.0010 ft Smp/Man Basin Rain Opt: Global Max dZ:1.0000 ft OF Region Rain Opt:Global Link Optimizer Tol:0.0001 ft Rainfall Name:~SCSII-24 Rainfall Amount:3.83 in Edge Length Option:Automatic Storm Duration:24.0000 hr Dflt Damping (2D):0.0050 ft Dflt Damping (1D):0.0050 ft Min Node Srf Area (2D): 100 ft2 Min Node Srf Area (1D): 100 ft2 Energy Switch (2D):Energy Energy Switch (1D):Energy Comment: Simulation: 100 YR - 24 HR Scenario:Scenario1 Run Date/Time:3/13/2023 7:01:54 PM Program Version:ICPR4 4.07.04 General Run Mode:Normal Year Month Day Hour [hr] Start Time:0 0 0 0.0000 End Time:0 0 0 60.0000 Hydrology [sec]Surface Hydraulics [sec] Groundwater [sec] Min Calculation Time:60.0000 1.0000 900.0000 Max Calculation Time:30.0000 Output Time Increments Hydrology Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min] 0 0 0 0.0000 15.0000 EXISTING CONDITIONS ICPR REPORT Page 2 of 16 3 C:\Users\connor.strege\Desktop\ICPR Projects\170228001\2023-03-15_Existing\3/13/2023 19:02 Surface Hydraulics Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min] 0 0 0 0.0000 15.0000 Groundwater Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min] 0 0 0 0.0000 60.0000 Restart File Save Restart:False Resources & Lookup Tables Resources Lookup Tables Rainfall Folder:Boundary Stage Set: Reference ET Folder:Extern Hydrograph Set: Unit Hydrograph Folder: Curve Number Set: Green-Ampt Set: Vertical Layers Set: Impervious Set: Roughness Set: Crop Coef Set: Fillable Porosity Set: Conductivity Set: Leakage Set: Tolerances & Options Time Marching:SAOR IA Recovery Time:24.0000 hr Max Iterations:6 ET for Manual Basins:False Over-Relax Weight Fact: 0.5 dec dZ Tolerance:0.0010 ft Smp/Man Basin Rain Opt: Global Max dZ:1.0000 ft OF Region Rain Opt:Global Link Optimizer Tol:0.0001 ft Rainfall Name:~SCSII-24 Rainfall Amount:6.46 in Edge Length Option:Automatic Storm Duration:24.0000 hr Dflt Damping (2D):0.0050 ft Dflt Damping (1D):0.0050 ft Min Node Srf Area (2D): 100 ft2 Min Node Srf Area (1D): 100 ft2 Energy Switch (2D):Energy Energy Switch (1D):Energy Comment: EXISTING CONDITIONS ICPR REPORT Page 3 of 16 4 C:\Users\connor.strege\Desktop\ICPR Projects\170228001\2023-03-15_Existing\3/13/2023 19:02 Simple Basin: DA1 Scenario:Scenario1 Node:POND 1 Hydrograph Method:NRCS Unit Hydrograph Infiltration Method:Curve Number Time of Concentration:11.0000 min Max Allowable Q:0.00 cfs Time Shift:0.0000 hr Unit Hydrograph:UH484 Peaking Factor:484.0 Area:7.5300 ac Curve Number:97.0 % Impervious:0.00 % DCIA:0.00 % Direct:0.00 Rainfall Name: Comment: Simple Basin Runoff Summary [Scenario1] Basin Name Sim Name Max Flow [cfs] Time to Max Flow [hrs] Total Rainfall [in] Total Runoff [in] Area [ac]Equivalent Curve Number % Imperv % DCIA DA1 010 YR - 24 HR 30.41 12.0333 3.83 3.49 7.5300 97.0 0.00 0.00 DA1 100 YR - 24 HR 51.89 12.0333 6.46 6.12 7.5300 97.0 0.00 0.00 Simple Basin Mass Balance Summary [Scenario1] Basin Name Sim Name Total Rainfall Total Irrigation Total Runoff Total ET Total Initial Abst Total Recharge Change Soil Storage DA1 [in]010 YR - 24 HR 3.83 0.00 3.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 DA1 [ft3]010 YR - 24 HR 104689 0 95391 0 0 0 9298 DA1 [ac-ft]010 YR - 24 HR 2.40 0.00 2.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 DA1 [in]100 YR - 24 HR 6.46 0.00 6.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 DA1 [ft3]100 YR - 24 HR 176577 0 167183 0 0 0 9394 DA1 [ac-ft]100 YR - 24 HR 4.05 0.00 3.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 EXISTING CONDITIONS ICPR REPORT Page 4 of 16 5 C:\Users\connor.strege\Desktop\ICPR Projects\170228001\2023-03-15_Existing\3/13/2023 19:02 Simple Basin: DA2 Scenario:Scenario1 Node:POND 2 Hydrograph Method:NRCS Unit Hydrograph Infiltration Method:Curve Number Time of Concentration:11.0000 min Max Allowable Q:0.00 cfs Time Shift:0.0000 hr Unit Hydrograph:UH484 Peaking Factor:484.0 Area:8.6600 ac Curve Number:97.0 % Impervious:0.00 % DCIA:0.00 % Direct:0.00 Rainfall Name: Comment: Simple Basin Runoff Summary [Scenario1] Basin Name Sim Name Max Flow [cfs] Time to Max Flow [hrs] Total Rainfall [in] Total Runoff [in] Area [ac]Equivalent Curve Number % Imperv % DCIA DA2 010 YR - 24 HR 34.97 12.0333 3.83 3.49 8.6600 97.0 0.00 0.00 DA2 100 YR - 24 HR 59.67 12.0333 6.46 6.12 8.6600 97.0 0.00 0.00 Simple Basin Mass Balance Summary [Scenario1] Basin Name Sim Name Total Rainfall Total Irrigation Total Runoff Total ET Total Initial Abst Total Recharge Change Soil Storage DA2 [in]010 YR - 24 HR 3.83 0.00 3.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 DA2 [ft3]010 YR - 24 HR 120399 0 109706 0 0 0 10693 DA2 [ac-ft]010 YR - 24 HR 2.76 0.00 2.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 DA2 [in]100 YR - 24 HR 6.46 0.00 6.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 DA2 [ft3]100 YR - 24 HR 203075 0 192271 0 0 0 10804 DA2 [ac-ft]100 YR - 24 HR 4.66 0.00 4.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 EXISTING CONDITIONS ICPR REPORT Page 5 of 16 6 C:\Users\connor.strege\Desktop\ICPR Projects\170228001\2023-03-15_Existing\3/13/2023 19:02 Simple Basin: DA3 Scenario:Scenario1 Node:POND 3 Hydrograph Method:NRCS Unit Hydrograph Infiltration Method:Curve Number Time of Concentration:20.0000 min Max Allowable Q:0.00 cfs Time Shift:0.0000 hr Unit Hydrograph:UH484 Peaking Factor:484.0 Area:19.8120 ac Curve Number:85.0 % Impervious:0.00 % DCIA:0.00 % Direct:0.00 Rainfall Name: Comment: Simple Basin Runoff Summary [Scenario1] Basin Name Sim Name Max Flow [cfs] Time to Max Flow [hrs] Total Rainfall [in] Total Runoff [in] Area [ac]Equivalent Curve Number % Imperv % DCIA DA3 010 YR - 24 HR 48.21 12.1167 3.83 2.31 19.8120 85.0 0.00 0.00 DA3 100 YR - 24 HR 96.59 12.1167 6.46 4.75 19.8120 85.0 0.00 0.00 Simple Basin Mass Balance Summary [Scenario1] Basin Name Sim Name Total Rainfall Total Irrigation Total Runoff Total ET Total Initial Abst Total Recharge Change Soil Storage DA3 [in]010 YR - 24 HR 3.83 0.00 2.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.52 DA3 [ft3]010 YR - 24 HR 275444 0 166220 0 0 0 109224 DA3 [ac-ft]010 YR - 24 HR 6.32 0.00 3.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.51 DA3 [in]100 YR - 24 HR 6.46 0.00 4.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.71 DA3 [ft3]100 YR - 24 HR 464587 0 341452 0 0 0 123135 DA3 [ac-ft]100 YR - 24 HR 10.67 0.00 7.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.83 EXISTING CONDITIONS ICPR REPORT Page 6 of 16 7 C:\Users\connor.strege\Desktop\ICPR Projects\170228001\2023-03-15_Existing\3/13/2023 19:02 Simple Basin: GC1 Scenario:Scenario1 Node:POND 1 Hydrograph Method:NRCS Unit Hydrograph Infiltration Method:Curve Number Time of Concentration:10.0000 min Max Allowable Q:0.00 cfs Time Shift:0.0000 hr Unit Hydrograph:UH484 Peaking Factor:484.0 Area:4.7860 ac Curve Number:97.0 % Impervious:0.00 % DCIA:0.00 % Direct:0.00 Rainfall Name: Comment: Simple Basin Runoff Summary [Scenario1] Basin Name Sim Name Max Flow [cfs] Time to Max Flow [hrs] Total Rainfall [in] Total Runoff [in] Area [ac]Equivalent Curve Number % Imperv % DCIA GC1 010 YR - 24 HR 19.73 12.0167 3.83 3.49 4.7860 97.0 0.00 0.00 GC1 100 YR - 24 HR 33.66 12.0167 6.46 6.12 4.7860 97.0 0.00 0.00 Simple Basin Mass Balance Summary [Scenario1] Basin Name Sim Name Total Rainfall Total Irrigation Total Runoff Total ET Total Initial Abst Total Recharge Change Soil Storage GC1 [in]010 YR - 24 HR 3.83 0.00 3.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 GC1 [ft3]010 YR - 24 HR 66539 0 60646 0 0 0 5893 GC1 [ac-ft]010 YR - 24 HR 1.53 0.00 1.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 GC1 [in]100 YR - 24 HR 6.46 0.00 6.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 GC1 [ft3]100 YR - 24 HR 112231 0 106289 0 0 0 5942 GC1 [ac-ft]100 YR - 24 HR 2.58 0.00 2.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 EXISTING CONDITIONS ICPR REPORT Page 7 of 16 8 C:\Users\connor.strege\Desktop\ICPR Projects\170228001\2023-03-15_Existing\3/13/2023 19:02 Simple Basin: GC2 Scenario:Scenario1 Node:POND 2 Hydrograph Method:NRCS Unit Hydrograph Infiltration Method:Curve Number Time of Concentration:10.0000 min Max Allowable Q:0.00 cfs Time Shift:0.0000 hr Unit Hydrograph:UH484 Peaking Factor:484.0 Area:2.1560 ac Curve Number:97.0 % Impervious:0.00 % DCIA:0.00 % Direct:0.00 Rainfall Name: Comment: Simple Basin Runoff Summary [Scenario1] Basin Name Sim Name Max Flow [cfs] Time to Max Flow [hrs] Total Rainfall [in] Total Runoff [in] Area [ac]Equivalent Curve Number % Imperv % DCIA GC2 010 YR - 24 HR 8.89 12.0167 3.83 3.49 2.1560 97.0 0.00 0.00 GC2 100 YR - 24 HR 15.16 12.0167 6.46 6.12 2.1560 97.0 0.00 0.00 Simple Basin Mass Balance Summary [Scenario1] Basin Name Sim Name Total Rainfall Total Irrigation Total Runoff Total ET Total Initial Abst Total Recharge Change Soil Storage GC2 [in]010 YR - 24 HR 3.83 0.00 3.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 GC2 [ft3]010 YR - 24 HR 29975 0 27320 0 0 0 2655 GC2 [ac-ft]010 YR - 24 HR 0.69 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 GC2 [in]100 YR - 24 HR 6.46 0.00 6.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 GC2 [ft3]100 YR - 24 HR 50558 0 47881 0 0 0 2677 GC2 [ac-ft]100 YR - 24 HR 1.16 0.00 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 EXISTING CONDITIONS ICPR REPORT Page 8 of 16 9 C:\Users\connor.strege\Desktop\ICPR Projects\170228001\2023-03-15_Existing\3/13/2023 19:02 Node: EXISTING OUTFALL Scenario:Scenario1 Type:Time/Stage Base Flow:0.00 cfs Initial Stage:806.25 ft Warning Stage:813.00 ft Boundary Stage: Year Month Day Hour Stage [ft] 0 0 0 0.0000 806.25 0 0 0 999.0000 806.25 Comment: Node Max Conditions [Scenario1] Node Name Sim Name Warning Stage [ft] Max Stage [ft] Min/Max Delta Stage [ft] Max Total Inflow [cfs] Max Total Outflow [cfs] Max Surface Area [ft2] EXISTING OUTFALL 010 YR - 24 HR 813.00 806.25 0.0000 23.48 0.00 0 EXISTING OUTFALL 100 YR - 24 HR 813.00 806.25 0.0000 28.54 0.00 0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ICPR REPORT Page 9 of 16 10 C:\Users\connor.strege\Desktop\ICPR Projects\170228001\2023-03-15_Existing\3/13/2023 19:02 Stage [ Node: EXISTING OUTFALL ] Node: POND 1 Scenario:Scenario1 Type:Stage/Area Base Flow:0.00 cfs Initial Stage:813.72 ft Warning Stage:820.00 ft Stage [ft]Area [ac]Area [ft2] 813.72 0.2640 11500 814.00 0.2740 11935 815.00 0.3080 13416 816.00 0.3440 14985 817.00 0.3820 16640 818.00 0.4350 18949 819.00 0.4920 21432 820.00 0.5400 23522 Comment: EXISTING CONDITIONS ICPR REPORT Page 10 of 16 11 C:\Users\connor.strege\Desktop\ICPR Projects\170228001\2023-03-15_Existing\3/13/2023 19:02 Node Max Conditions [Scenario1] Node Name Sim Name Warning Stage [ft] Max Stage [ft] Min/Max Delta Stage [ft] Max Total Inflow [cfs] Max Total Outflow [cfs] Max Surface Area [ft2] POND 1 010 YR - 24 HR 820.00 815.83 0.0014 50.10 39.63 15070 POND 1 100 YR - 24 HR 820.00 817.64 0.0032 85.51 62.86 18117 Stage [ Node: POND 1 ] Node: POND 2 Scenario:Scenario1 Type:Stage/Area Base Flow:0.00 cfs Initial Stage:811.23 ft Warning Stage:820.00 ft EXISTING CONDITIONS ICPR REPORT Page 11 of 16 12 C:\Users\connor.strege\Desktop\ICPR Projects\170228001\2023-03-15_Existing\3/13/2023 19:02 Stage [ft]Area [ac]Area [ft2] 811.23 0.0001 4 812.00 0.0030 131 813.00 0.0120 523 814.00 0.0270 1176 815.00 0.0420 1830 816.00 0.0580 2526 817.00 0.0750 3267 818.00 0.0990 4312 819.00 0.1260 5489 820.00 0.1520 6621 Comment: Node Max Conditions [Scenario1] Node Name Sim Name Warning Stage [ft] Max Stage [ft] Min/Max Delta Stage [ft] Max Total Inflow [cfs] Max Total Outflow [cfs] Max Surface Area [ft2] POND 2 010 YR - 24 HR 820.00 815.38 -0.0037 77.45 76.17 2641 POND 2 100 YR - 24 HR 820.00 816.86 0.0052 113.10 110.28 3182 EXISTING CONDITIONS ICPR REPORT Page 12 of 16 13 C:\Users\connor.strege\Desktop\ICPR Projects\170228001\2023-03-15_Existing\3/13/2023 19:02 Stage [ Node: POND 2 ] Node: POND 3 Scenario:Scenario1 Type:Stage/Area Base Flow:0.00 cfs Initial Stage:809.10 ft Warning Stage:815.00 ft Stage [ft]Area [ac]Area [ft2] 809.10 1.8750 81675 810.00 1.9410 84550 811.00 2.4880 108377 812.00 3.2810 142920 813.00 3.7480 163263 814.00 4.1240 179641 815.00 4.4000 191664 Comment: EXISTING CONDITIONS ICPR REPORT Page 13 of 16 14 C:\Users\connor.strege\Desktop\ICPR Projects\170228001\2023-03-15_Existing\3/13/2023 19:02 Node Max Conditions [Scenario1] Node Name Sim Name Warning Stage [ft] Max Stage [ft] Min/Max Delta Stage [ft] Max Total Inflow [cfs] Max Total Outflow [cfs] Max Surface Area [ft2] POND 3 010 YR - 24 HR 815.00 811.42 0.0010 123.35 23.48 123435 POND 3 100 YR - 24 HR 815.00 812.89 0.0014 206.30 28.54 161394 Stage [ Node: POND 3 ] Pipe Link: 1 - 2 Scenario:Scenario1 From Node:POND 1 To Node:POND 2 Link Count:2 Flow Direction:Both Damping:0.0000 ft Length:190.00 ft Upstream Downstream Invert:813.72 ft Invert:813.31 ft Manning's N:0.0130 Manning's N:0.0130 Geometry: Circular Geometry: Circular Max Depth:2.50 ft Max Depth:2.50 ft Bottom Clip Default:0.00 ft Default:0.00 ft Op Table:Op Table: EXISTING CONDITIONS ICPR REPORT Page 14 of 16 POND 3 HWEL 15 C:\Users\connor.strege\Desktop\ICPR Projects\170228001\2023-03-15_Existing\3/13/2023 19:02 FHWA Code:0 Entr Loss Coef:0.20 Exit Loss Coef:0.00 Bend Loss Coef:0.00 Bend Location:0.00 dec Energy Switch:Energy Ref Node:Ref Node: Manning's N:0.0000 Manning's N:0.0000 Top Clip Default:0.00 ft Default:0.00 ft Op Table:Op Table: Ref Node:Ref Node: Manning's N:0.0000 Manning's N:0.0000 Comment: Link Min/Max Conditions [Scenario1] Link Name Sim Name Max Flow [cfs] Min Flow [cfs]Min/Max Delta Flow [cfs] Max Us Velocity [fps] Max Ds Velocity [fps] Max Avg Velocity [fps] 1 - 2 010 YR - 24 HR 39.63 0.00 0.05 4.58 6.12 5.25 1 - 2 100 YR - 24 HR 62.86 0.00 -0.11 6.40 6.86 6.41 Pipe Link: 2 - 3 Scenario:Scenario1 From Node:POND 2 To Node:POND 3 Link Count:1 Flow Direction:Both Damping:0.0000 ft Length:200.00 ft FHWA Code:0 Entr Loss Coef:0.20 Exit Loss Coef:0.00 Bend Loss Coef:0.00 Bend Location:0.00 dec Energy Switch:Energy Upstream Downstream Invert:811.23 ft Invert:810.83 ft Manning's N:0.0130 Manning's N:0.0130 Geometry: Circular Geometry: Circular Max Depth:3.50 ft Max Depth:3.50 ft Bottom Clip Default:0.00 ft Default:0.00 ft Op Table:Op Table: Ref Node:Ref Node: Manning's N:0.0000 Manning's N:0.0000 Top Clip Default:0.00 ft Default:0.00 ft Op Table:Op Table: Ref Node:Ref Node: Manning's N:0.0000 Manning's N:0.0000 Comment: Link Min/Max Conditions [Scenario1] Link Name Sim Name Max Flow [cfs] Min Flow [cfs]Min/Max Delta Flow [cfs] Max Us Velocity [fps] Max Ds Velocity [fps] Max Avg Velocity [fps] 2 - 3 010 YR - 24 HR 76.17 0.00 0.18 7.92 9.48 8.70 2 - 3 100 YR - 24 110.28 0.00 0.22 11.46 12.05 11.75 EXISTING CONDITIONS ICPR REPORT Page 15 of 16 DISCHARGE FROM EXISTING PROJECT SITE 16 C:\Users\connor.strege\Desktop\ICPR Projects\170228001\2023-03-15_Existing\3/13/2023 19:02 Link Name Sim Name Max Flow [cfs] Min Flow [cfs]Min/Max Delta Flow [cfs] Max Us Velocity [fps] Max Ds Velocity [fps] Max Avg Velocity [fps] HR Pipe Link: 3 - BOUNDARY Scenario:Scenario1 From Node:POND 3 To Node:EXISTING OUTFALL Link Count:1 Flow Direction:Both Damping:0.0000 ft Length:300.00 ft FHWA Code:0 Entr Loss Coef:0.20 Exit Loss Coef:0.00 Bend Loss Coef:0.00 Bend Location:0.00 dec Energy Switch:Energy Upstream Downstream Invert:809.10 ft Invert:806.25 ft Manning's N:0.0130 Manning's N:0.0130 Geometry: Circular Geometry: Circular Max Depth:2.00 ft Max Depth:2.00 ft Bottom Clip Default:0.00 ft Default:0.00 ft Op Table:Op Table: Ref Node:Ref Node: Manning's N:0.0000 Manning's N:0.0000 Top Clip Default:0.00 ft Default:0.00 ft Op Table:Op Table: Ref Node:Ref Node: Manning's N:0.0000 Manning's N:0.0000 Comment: Link Min/Max Conditions [Scenario1] Link Name Sim Name Max Flow [cfs] Min Flow [cfs]Min/Max Delta Flow [cfs] Max Us Velocity [fps] Max Ds Velocity [fps] Max Avg Velocity [fps] 3 - BOUNDARY 010 YR - 24 HR 23.48 0.00 1.82 7.73 8.62 8.17 3 - BOUNDARY 100 YR - 24 HR 28.54 0.00 1.82 9.09 9.45 9.27 EXISTING CONDITIONS ICPR REPORT Page 16 of 16 POND 3 DISCHARGE 170228001 – BJ’s Wholesale Club at Greyhound Commons Appendix C: Proposed Basin Conditions WHOLESALE CLUB ONLYMarch 14, 2023 BJ'S WHOLESALE CLUB AT GREYHOUND COMMONS PROPOSED BASINS MAP 0'200'100'NORTH PROJECT: BY: DATE: Hydrologic Group % A 0.0% B 30.0% C 0.0% D 70.0% Total 100.0% Soil Group Weighted Runoff Coefficient C Actual Soil Group Next Less Impervious Soil Group Undeveloped Meadow -0.25 72 76 Fully Developed Open Space Good Condition (>75% Cover)0.30 74 78 Fully Developed Impervious Paved 0.85 98 98 Fully Developed Impervious Rooftop 0.90 98 98 Water Pond or Lake -1.00 100 100 Weighted CN Weighted CN Meadow Open Space - Good Condition (>75% Cover)Impervious - Paved Impervious - Rooftop Pond or Lake Total Actual Soil Group Next Less Impervious Soil Group PR1 0.00 1.62 5.77 2.36 0.00 9.75 0.77 94 95 BJ's of Carmel CVS 14-Mar-23 Site Soil Soil Group Weighted CN Basin Area (ac) Weighted C Cover Type Condition 09/18/2020 Page 19 ICPR MODEL - PROPOSED CONDITIONS NODE DIAGRAM 1 C:\Users\connor.strege\Desktop\ICPR Projects\170228001\2023-06-22_Proposed\6/22/2023 18:08 Simple Basin: DA1 Scenario:Scenario1 Node:UD1 Hydrograph Method:NRCS Unit Hydrograph Infiltration Method:Curve Number Time of Concentration:11.0000 min Max Allowable Q:0.00 cfs Time Shift:0.0000 hr Unit Hydrograph:UH484 Peaking Factor:484.0 Area:13.3820 ac Curve Number:97.0 % Impervious:0.00 % DCIA:0.00 % Direct:0.00 Rainfall Name: Comment: Simple Basin Runoff Summary [Scenario1] Basin Name Sim Name Max Flow [cfs] Time to Max Flow [hrs] Total Rainfall [in] Total Runoff [in] Area [ac]Equivalent Curve Number % Imperv % DCIA DA1 010 YR - 24 HR 54.04 12.0333 3.83 3.49 13.3820 97.0 0.00 0.00 DA1 100 YR - 24 HR 92.21 12.0333 6.46 6.12 13.3820 97.0 0.00 0.00 Simple Basin: DA3 Scenario:Scenario1 Node:POND 3 Hydrograph Method:NRCS Unit Hydrograph Infiltration Method:Curve Number Time of Concentration:20.0000 min Max Allowable Q:0.00 cfs Time Shift:0.0000 hr Unit Hydrograph:UH484 Peaking Factor:484.0 Area:19.8120 ac Curve Number:85.0 % Impervious:0.00 % DCIA:0.00 % Direct:0.00 Rainfall Name: PROPOSED MODEL ICPR REPORT Page 1 of 12 2 C:\Users\connor.strege\Desktop\ICPR Projects\170228001\2023-06-22_Proposed\6/22/2023 18:08 Comment: Simple Basin Runoff Summary [Scenario1] Basin Name Sim Name Max Flow [cfs] Time to Max Flow [hrs] Total Rainfall [in] Total Runoff [in] Area [ac]Equivalent Curve Number % Imperv % DCIA DA3 010 YR - 24 HR 48.21 12.1167 3.83 2.31 19.8120 85.0 0.00 0.00 DA3 100 YR - 24 HR 96.59 12.1167 6.46 4.75 19.8120 85.0 0.00 0.00 Simple Basin: PR1 Scenario:Scenario1 Node:UD1 Hydrograph Method:NRCS Unit Hydrograph Infiltration Method:Curve Number Time of Concentration:10.0000 min Max Allowable Q:0.00 cfs Time Shift:0.0000 hr Unit Hydrograph:UH484 Peaking Factor:484.0 Area:9.7500 ac Curve Number:95.0 % Impervious:0.00 % DCIA:0.00 % Direct:0.00 Rainfall Name: Comment: Simple Basin Runoff Summary [Scenario1] Basin Name Sim Name Max Flow [cfs] Time to Max Flow [hrs] Total Rainfall [in] Total Runoff [in] Area [ac]Equivalent Curve Number % Imperv % DCIA PR1 010 YR - 24 HR 39.04 12.0167 3.83 3.27 9.7500 95.0 0.00 0.00 PR1 100 YR - 24 HR 67.76 12.0167 6.46 5.88 9.7500 95.0 0.00 0.00 Node: POND 3 PROPOSED MODEL ICPR REPORT Page 2 of 12 3 C:\Users\connor.strege\Desktop\ICPR Projects\170228001\2023-06-22_Proposed\6/22/2023 18:08 Scenario:Scenario1 Type:Stage/Area Base Flow:0.00 cfs Initial Stage:809.10 ft Warning Stage:815.00 ft Stage [ft]Area [ac]Area [ft2] 809.10 1.8750 81675 810.00 1.9410 84550 811.00 2.4880 108377 812.00 3.2810 142920 813.00 3.7480 163263 814.00 4.1240 179641 815.00 4.4000 191664 Comment: Node Max Conditions [Scenario1] Node Name Sim Name Warning Stage [ft] Max Stage [ft] Min/Max Delta Stage [ft] Max Total Inflow [cfs] Max Total Outflow [cfs] Max Surface Area [ft2] POND 3 010 YR - 24 HR 815.00 811.18 -0.0010 91.07 22.77 115032 POND 3 100 YR - 24 HR 815.00 812.71 0.0014 187.34 28.00 157816 PROPOSED MODEL ICPR REPORT Page 3 of 12 4 C:\Users\connor.strege\Desktop\ICPR Projects\170228001\2023-06-22_Proposed\6/22/2023 18:08 Stage [ Node: POND 3 ] Node: PROPOSED OUTFALL Scenario:Scenario1 Type:Time/Stage Base Flow:0.00 cfs Initial Stage:806.25 ft Warning Stage:813.00 ft Boundary Stage: Year Month Day Hour Stage [ft] 0 0 0 0.0000 806.25 0 0 0 999.0000 806.25 Comment: Node Max Conditions [Scenario1] Node Name Sim Name Warning Stage [ft] Max Stage [ft] Min/Max Delta Stage Max Total Inflow [cfs] Max Total Outflow [cfs] Max Surface Area [ft2] PROPOSED MODEL ICPR REPORT Page 4 of 12 5 C:\Users\connor.strege\Desktop\ICPR Projects\170228001\2023-06-22_Proposed\6/22/2023 18:08 Node Name Sim Name Warning Stage [ft] Max Stage [ft] Min/Max Delta Stage [ft] Max Total Inflow [cfs] Max Total Outflow [cfs] Max Surface Area [ft2] PROPOSED OUTFALL 010 YR - 24 HR 813.00 806.25 0.0000 22.77 0.00 0 PROPOSED OUTFALL 100 YR - 24 HR 813.00 806.25 0.0000 28.00 0.00 0 Stage [ Node: PROPOSED OUTFALL ] Node: UD1 Scenario:Scenario1 Type:Stage/Area Base Flow:0.00 cfs Initial Stage:810.80 ft Warning Stage:817.55 ft Stage [ft]Area [ac]Area [ft2] 810.80 0.3040 13242 PROPOSED MODEL ICPR REPORT Page 5 of 12 6 C:\Users\connor.strege\Desktop\ICPR Projects\170228001\2023-06-22_Proposed\6/22/2023 18:08 Stage [ft]Area [ac]Area [ft2] 810.88 0.3040 13242 810.97 0.3040 13242 811.05 0.3040 13242 811.13 0.3040 13242 811.22 0.3040 13242 811.30 0.3040 13242 811.38 0.3040 13242 811.47 0.3040 13242 811.55 0.3040 13242 811.63 0.6400 27878 811.72 0.6380 27791 811.80 0.6370 27748 811.88 0.6360 27704 811.97 0.6350 27661 812.05 0.6330 27573 812.13 0.6320 27530 812.22 0.6300 27443 812.30 0.6290 27399 812.38 0.6270 27312 812.47 0.6250 27225 812.55 0.6230 27138 812.63 0.6210 27051 812.72 0.6190 26964 812.80 0.6170 26877 812.88 0.6150 26789 812.97 0.6130 26702 813.05 0.6100 26572 813.13 0.6080 26484 813.22 0.6050 26354 813.30 0.6020 26223 813.38 0.5990 26092 813.47 0.5960 25962 813.55 0.5930 25831 813.63 0.5900 25700 813.72 0.5870 25570 813.80 0.5830 25395 813.88 0.5790 25221 813.97 0.5760 25091 814.05 0.5720 24916 814.13 0.5680 24742 814.22 0.5640 24568 814.30 0.5590 24350 814.38 0.5540 24132 814.47 0.5500 23958 814.55 0.5450 23740 814.63 0.5400 23522 814.72 0.5350 23305 814.80 0.5290 23043 814.88 0.5230 22782 PROPOSED MODEL ICPR REPORT Page 6 of 12 7 C:\Users\connor.strege\Desktop\ICPR Projects\170228001\2023-06-22_Proposed\6/22/2023 18:08 Stage [ft]Area [ac]Area [ft2] 814.97 0.5170 22521 815.05 0.5110 22259 815.13 0.5040 21954 815.22 0.4980 21693 815.30 0.4900 21344 815.38 0.4830 21039 815.47 0.4740 20647 815.55 0.4660 20299 815.63 0.4560 19863 815.72 0.4460 19428 815.80 0.4350 18949 815.88 0.4230 18426 815.97 0.4080 17772 816.05 0.3910 17032 816.13 0.3630 15812 816.22 0.3400 14810 816.30 0.3320 14462 816.38 0.3260 14201 816.47 0.3190 13896 816.55 0.3100 13504 816.63 0.3040 13242 816.72 0.3040 13242 816.80 0.3040 13242 816.88 0.3040 13242 816.97 0.3040 13242 817.05 0.3040 13242 817.13 0.3040 13242 817.22 0.3040 13242 817.30 0.3040 13242 817.38 0.3040 13242 817.47 0.3040 13242 817.55 0.3040 13242 Comment: Node Max Conditions [Scenario1] Node Name Sim Name Warning Stage [ft] Max Stage [ft] Min/Max Delta Stage [ft] Max Total Inflow [cfs] Max Total Outflow [cfs] Max Surface Area [ft2] UD1 010 YR - 24 HR 817.55 814.43 0.0023 93.01 43.52 28439 UD1 100 YR - 24 HR 817.55 817.29 0.0056 159.91 91.31 28439 PROPOSED MODEL ICPR REPORT Page 7 of 12 8 C:\Users\connor.strege\Desktop\ICPR Projects\170228001\2023-06-22_Proposed\6/22/2023 18:08 Stage [ Node: UD1 ] Pipe Link: 3 - BOUNDARY Scenario:Scenario1 From Node:POND 3 To Node:PROPOSED OUTFALL Link Count:1 Flow Direction:Both Damping:0.0000 ft Length:300.00 ft FHWA Code:0 Entr Loss Coef:0.20 Exit Loss Coef:0.00 Bend Loss Coef:0.00 Bend Location:0.00 dec Energy Switch:Energy Upstream Downstream Invert:809.10 ft Invert:806.25 ft Manning's N:0.0130 Manning's N:0.0130 Geometry: Circular Geometry: Circular Max Depth:2.00 ft Max Depth:2.00 ft Bottom Clip Default:0.00 ft Default:0.00 ft Op Table:Op Table: Ref Node:Ref Node: Manning's N:0.0000 Manning's N:0.0000 Top Clip Default:0.00 ft Default:0.00 ft Op Table:Op Table: Ref Node:Ref Node: Manning's N:0.0000 Manning's N:0.0000 Comment: PROPOSED MODEL ICPR REPORT Page 8 of 12 90% OF VOLUME AVAILABLE AT t = 16.75 HOURS 9 C:\Users\connor.strege\Desktop\ICPR Projects\170228001\2023-06-22_Proposed\6/22/2023 18:08 Link Min/Max Conditions [Scenario1] Link Name Sim Name Max Flow [cfs] Min Flow [cfs]Min/Max Delta Flow [cfs] Max Us Velocity [fps] Max Ds Velocity [fps] Max Avg Velocity [fps] 3 - BOUNDARY 010 YR - 24 HR 22.77 0.00 1.81 7.73 8.62 8.17 3 - BOUNDARY 100 YR - 24 HR 28.00 0.00 1.82 8.91 9.30 9.11 Pipe Link: UD1 - 3 Scenario:Scenario1 From Node:UD1 To Node:POND 3 Link Count:1 Flow Direction:Both Damping:0.0000 ft Length:200.00 ft FHWA Code:0 Entr Loss Coef:0.20 Exit Loss Coef:1.00 Bend Loss Coef:0.00 Bend Location:0.00 dec Energy Switch:Energy Upstream Downstream Invert:810.80 ft Invert:810.40 ft Manning's N:0.0130 Manning's N:0.0130 Geometry: Circular Geometry: Circular Max Depth:3.50 ft Max Depth:3.50 ft Bottom Clip Default:0.00 ft Default:0.00 ft Op Table:Op Table: Ref Node:Ref Node: Manning's N:0.0000 Manning's N:0.0000 Top Clip Default:0.00 ft Default:0.00 ft Op Table:Op Table: Ref Node:Ref Node: Manning's N:0.0000 Manning's N:0.0000 Comment: Link Min/Max Conditions [Scenario1] Link Name Sim Name Max Flow [cfs] Min Flow [cfs]Min/Max Delta Flow [cfs] Max Us Velocity [fps] Max Ds Velocity [fps] Max Avg Velocity [fps] UD1 - 3 010 YR - 24 HR 43.52 0.00 0.18 4.52 7.41 5.96 UD1 - 3 100 YR - 24 HR 91.31 0.00 0.29 9.49 10.53 10.01 Simulation: 010 YR - 24 HR Scenario:Scenario1 Run Date/Time:6/22/2023 6:07:05 PM Program Version:ICPR4 4.07.04 General Run Mode:Normal PROPOSED MODEL ICPR REPORT Page 9 of 12 10 C:\Users\connor.strege\Desktop\ICPR Projects\170228001\2023-06-22_Proposed\6/22/2023 18:08 Year Month Day Hour [hr] Start Time:0 0 0 0.0000 End Time:0 0 0 60.0000 Hydrology [sec]Surface Hydraulics [sec] Groundwater [sec] Min Calculation Time:60.0000 1.0000 900.0000 Max Calculation Time:30.0000 Output Time Increments Hydrology Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min] 0 0 0 0.0000 15.0000 Surface Hydraulics Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min] 0 0 0 0.0000 15.0000 Groundwater Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min] 0 0 0 0.0000 60.0000 Restart File Save Restart:False Resources & Lookup Tables Resources Lookup Tables Rainfall Folder:Boundary Stage Set: Reference ET Folder:Extern Hydrograph Set: Unit Hydrograph Folder: Curve Number Set: Green-Ampt Set: Vertical Layers Set: Impervious Set: Roughness Set: Crop Coef Set: Fillable Porosity Set: Conductivity Set: Leakage Set: Tolerances & Options Time Marching:SAOR IA Recovery Time:24.0000 hr Max Iterations:6 ET for Manual Basins:False PROPOSED MODEL ICPR REPORT Page 10 of 12 11 C:\Users\connor.strege\Desktop\ICPR Projects\170228001\2023-06-22_Proposed\6/22/2023 18:08 Over-Relax Weight Fact: 0.5 dec dZ Tolerance:0.0010 ft Smp/Man Basin Rain Opt: Global Max dZ:1.0000 ft OF Region Rain Opt:Global Link Optimizer Tol:0.0001 ft Rainfall Name:~SCSII-24 Rainfall Amount:3.83 in Edge Length Option:Automatic Storm Duration:24.0000 hr Dflt Damping (2D):0.0050 ft Dflt Damping (1D):0.0050 ft Min Node Srf Area (2D): 100 ft2 Min Node Srf Area (1D): 100 ft2 Energy Switch (2D):Energy Energy Switch (1D):Energy Comment: Simulation: 100 YR - 24 HR Scenario:Scenario1 Run Date/Time:6/22/2023 6:07:55 PM Program Version:ICPR4 4.07.04 General Run Mode:Normal Year Month Day Hour [hr] Start Time:0 0 0 0.0000 End Time:0 0 0 60.0000 Hydrology [sec]Surface Hydraulics [sec] Groundwater [sec] Min Calculation Time:60.0000 1.0000 900.0000 Max Calculation Time:30.0000 Output Time Increments Hydrology Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min] 0 0 0 0.0000 15.0000 Surface Hydraulics Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min] 0 0 0 0.0000 15.0000 Groundwater PROPOSED MODEL ICPR REPORT Page 11 of 12 12 C:\Users\connor.strege\Desktop\ICPR Projects\170228001\2023-06-22_Proposed\6/22/2023 18:08 Year Month Day Hour [hr]Time Increment [min] 0 0 0 0.0000 60.0000 Restart File Save Restart:False Resources & Lookup Tables Resources Lookup Tables Rainfall Folder:Boundary Stage Set: Reference ET Folder:Extern Hydrograph Set: Unit Hydrograph Folder: Curve Number Set: Green-Ampt Set: Vertical Layers Set: Impervious Set: Roughness Set: Crop Coef Set: Fillable Porosity Set: Conductivity Set: Leakage Set: Tolerances & Options Time Marching:SAOR IA Recovery Time:24.0000 hr Max Iterations:6 ET for Manual Basins:False Over-Relax Weight Fact: 0.5 dec dZ Tolerance:0.0010 ft Smp/Man Basin Rain Opt: Global Max dZ:1.0000 ft OF Region Rain Opt:Global Link Optimizer Tol:0.0001 ft Rainfall Name:~SCSII-24 Rainfall Amount:6.46 in Edge Length Option:Automatic Storm Duration:24.0000 hr Dflt Damping (2D):0.0050 ft Dflt Damping (1D):0.0050 ft Min Node Srf Area (2D): 100 ft2 Min Node Srf Area (1D): 100 ft2 Energy Switch (2D):Energy Energy Switch (1D):Energy Comment: PROPOSED MODEL ICPR REPORT Page 12 of 12 Project: Chamber Model - MC-4500 Units -Imperial Number of Chambers -776 Number of End Caps -64 Voids in the stone (porosity) - 40 % Base of Stone Elevation -810.80 ft Amount of Stone Above Chambers - 12 in Amount of Stone Below Chambers -9 in 9 Area of system -33128 sf Min. Area - Height of System Incremental Single Chamber Incremental Single End Cap Incremental Chambers Incremental End Cap Incremental Stone Incremental Ch, EC and Stone Cumulative System Elevation (inches)(cubic feet)(cubic feet)(cubic feet)(cubic feet)(cubic feet)(cubic feet)(cubic feet)(feet) 81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1104.27 1104.27 140553.57 817.55 80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1104.27 1104.27 139449.31 817.47 79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1104.27 1104.27 138345.04 817.38 78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1104.27 1104.27 137240.77 817.30 77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1104.27 1104.27 136136.51 817.22 76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1104.27 1104.27 135032.24 817.13 75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1104.27 1104.27 133927.97 817.05 74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1104.27 1104.27 132823.71 816.97 73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1104.27 1104.27 131719.44 816.88 72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1104.27 1104.27 130615.17 816.80 71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1104.27 1104.27 129510.91 816.72 70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1104.27 1104.27 128406.64 816.63 69 0.04 0.01 31.79 0.83 1091.22 1123.84 127302.37 816.55 68 0.12 0.03 90.09 2.17 1067.36 1159.62 126178.53 816.47 67 0.16 0.05 127.83 3.31 1051.81 1182.96 125018.91 816.38 66 0.21 0.07 161.97 4.22 1037.79 1203.98 123835.96 816.30 65 0.27 0.08 208.24 5.32 1018.85 1232.40 122631.97 816.22 64 0.45 0.11 351.37 6.74 961.02 1319.13 121399.57 816.13 63 0.67 0.13 516.24 8.47 894.38 1419.10 120080.44 816.05 62 0.80 0.16 620.04 10.30 852.13 1482.47 118661.35 815.97 61 0.91 0.19 704.71 12.08 817.55 1534.34 117178.88 815.88 60 1.00 0.22 778.25 13.99 787.37 1579.61 115644.54 815.80 59 1.09 0.25 843.77 15.80 760.44 1620.01 114064.93 815.72 58 1.16 0.28 902.86 17.62 736.07 1656.55 112444.92 815.63 57 1.23 0.30 957.59 19.32 713.50 1690.41 110788.36 815.55 56 1.30 0.33 1008.55 20.96 692.46 1721.97 109097.95 815.47 55 1.36 0.35 1056.16 22.69 672.73 1751.57 107375.98 815.38 54 1.42 0.38 1100.92 24.56 654.07 1779.55 105624.40 815.30 53 1.47 0.41 1143.30 26.19 636.47 1805.96 103844.85 815.22 52 1.53 0.44 1183.52 28.22 619.57 1831.31 102038.89 815.13 51 1.57 0.47 1221.80 30.00 603.54 1855.35 100207.58 815.05 50 1.62 0.50 1258.20 31.70 588.31 1878.20 98352.23 814.97 49 1.67 0.52 1292.99 33.32 573.74 1900.06 96474.03 814.88 48 1.71 0.54 1326.27 34.84 559.82 1920.94 94573.97 814.80 47 1.75 0.57 1358.07 36.27 546.53 1940.87 92653.04 814.72 46 1.79 0.59 1388.49 37.67 533.80 1959.96 90712.17 814.63 45 1.83 0.61 1417.90 39.04 521.49 1978.43 88752.20 814.55 44 1.86 0.63 1446.03 40.46 509.67 1996.16 86773.77 814.47 43 1.90 0.64 1473.10 41.16 498.56 2012.82 84777.61 814.38 42 1.93 0.68 1499.11 43.35 487.29 2029.74 82764.79 814.30 41 1.96 0.70 1524.13 44.79 476.70 2045.62 80735.05 814.22 40 2.00 0.72 1548.21 46.23 466.49 2060.93 78689.44 814.13 39 2.03 0.74 1571.41 47.60 456.67 2075.67 76628.50 814.05 38 2.05 0.76 1593.74 48.93 447.20 2089.87 74552.83 813.97 37 2.08 0.79 1615.24 50.27 438.06 2103.58 72462.97 813.88 36 2.11 0.80 1635.87 51.37 429.37 2116.61 70359.39 813.80 35 2.13 0.82 1655.87 52.48 420.93 2129.27 68242.78 813.72 34 2.16 0.84 1675.13 53.66 412.75 2141.55 66113.51 813.63 33 2.18 0.85 1693.65 54.48 405.01 2153.15 63971.96 813.55 32 2.21 0.86 1711.49 55.01 397.67 2164.16 61818.82 813.47 31 2.23 0.89 1728.66 56.93 390.03 2175.62 59654.65 813.38 30 2.25 0.90 1745.12 57.87 383.07 2186.06 57479.04 813.30 29 2.27 0.92 1761.01 58.70 376.38 2196.10 55292.97 813.22 28 2.29 0.92 1776.25 58.87 370.22 2205.34 53096.88 813.13 27 2.31 0.94 1790.89 60.38 363.76 2215.03 50891.54 813.05 26 2.33 0.96 1804.94 61.21 357.81 2223.95 48676.51 812.97 25 2.34 0.97 1818.40 61.99 352.11 2232.50 46452.55 812.88 24 2.36 0.98 1831.29 62.81 346.63 2240.72 44220.05 812.80 23 2.38 0.97 1843.62 62.15 341.96 2247.73 41979.33 812.72 22 2.39 1.00 1855.40 64.21 336.42 2256.03 39731.60 812.63 21 2.41 1.01 1866.64 64.71 331.73 2263.08 37475.57 812.55 20 2.42 1.02 1877.35 65.30 327.21 2269.86 35212.49 812.47 19 2.43 1.03 1887.53 65.94 322.88 2276.35 32942.64 812.38 18 2.44 1.04 1897.19 66.48 318.80 2282.47 30666.29 812.30 17 2.46 1.05 1906.35 66.97 314.94 2288.26 28383.82 812.22 16 2.47 1.05 1915.00 67.46 311.28 2293.74 26095.56 812.13 15 2.48 1.05 1923.15 67.23 308.12 2298.49 23801.82 812.05 14 2.49 1.06 1930.88 67.63 304.86 2303.37 21503.33 811.97 13 2.50 1.08 1938.21 68.83 301.45 2308.49 19199.96 811.88 12 2.51 1.08 1945.05 69.30 298.53 2312.88 16891.47 811.80 11 2.51 1.09 1951.42 69.64 295.84 2316.90 14578.59 811.72 10 2.53 1.11 1960.90 70.81 291.58 2323.29 12261.69 811.63 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1104.27 1104.27 9938.40 811.55 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1104.27 1104.27 8834.13 811.47 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1104.27 1104.27 7729.87 811.38 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1104.27 1104.27 6625.60 811.30 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1104.27 1104.27 5521.33 811.22 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1104.27 1104.27 4417.07 811.13 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1104.27 1104.27 3312.80 811.05 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1104.27 1104.27 2208.53 810.97 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1104.27 1104.27 1104.27 810.88 StormTech MC-4500 Cumulative Storage Volumes Underground Detention 30541 sf min. area Include Perimeter Stone in Calculations Click Here for Metric POND 3 OUTLET PIPE DOWNSTREAM END POND 3 OUTLET PIPE DOWNSTREAM END POND 3 OUTLET PIPE DOWNSTREAM END POND 3 OUTLET PIPE UPSTREAM END POND 3 OUTLET PIPE UPSTREAM END POND 3 OUTLET PIPE UPSTREAM END POND 3 POND BANKS UD1 OUTLET PIPE DOWNSTREAM END UD1 OUTLET PIPE DOWNSTREAM END UD1 OUTLET PIPE DOWNSTREAM END POND 3 POND BANKS POND 3 POND BANKS POND 3 POND BANKS POND 3 POND BANKS POND 3 POND BANKS 170228001 – BJ’s Wholesale Club at Greyhound Commons Appendix D: Proposed Storm Sewer Design ONLYMay 9, 2023 BJ's WHOLESALE CLUB AT GREYHOUND COMMONS CATCHMENT AREA MAP CARMEL, IN NORTH 200-6 TABLE 201-2: Rainfall Intensities for Various Return Periods and Storm Durations Rainfall Intensity (Inches/Hour) Return Period (Years) Duration 2 5 10 25 50 100 5 Min. 4.63 5.43 6.12 7.17 8.09 9.12 10 Min. 3.95 4.63 5.22 6.12 6.90 7.78 15 Min. 3.44 4.03 4.55 5.33 6.01 6.77 20 Min. 3.04 3.56 4.02 4.71 5.31 5.99 30 Min. 2.46 2.88 3.25 3.81 4.29 4.84 40 Min. 2.05 2.41 2.71 3.18 3.59 4.05 50 Min. 1.76 2.06 2.33 2.73 3.07 3.47 1 Hr. 1.54 1.80 2.03 2.38 2.68 3.03 1.5 Hrs. 1.07 1.23 1.42 1.63 1.91 2.24 2 Hrs. 0.83 0.95 1.11 1.37 1.60 1.87 3 Hrs. 0.59 0.72 0.84 1.04 1.22 1.42 4 Hrs. 0.47 0.58 0.68 0.84 0.99 1.15 5 Hrs. 0.40 0.49 0.58 0.71 0.83 0.97 6 Hrs. 0.35 0.43 0.50 0.62 0.72 0.85 7 Hrs. 0.31 0.38 0.44 0.55 0.64 0.75 8 Hrs. 0.28 0.34 0.40 0.49 0.57 0.67 9 Hrs. 0.25 0.31 0.36 0.45 0.52 0.61 10 Hrs. 0.23 0.28 0.33 0.41 0.48 0.56 12 Hrs. 0.20 0.24 0.29 0.35 0.41 0.48 14 Hrs. 0.17 0.22 0.25 0.31 0.36 0.42 16 Hrs. 0.16 0.19 0.23 0.28 0.32 0.38 18 Hrs. 0.14 0.17 0.20 0.25 0.29 0.34 20 Hrs. 0.13 0.16 0.19 0.23 0.27 0.31 24 Hrs. 0.11 0.14 0.16 0.20 0.23 0.27 Source: Purdue,A.M., et. al., "Statistical Characteristics of Short Time Incremental Rainfall", Aug., 1992. (Values in this table are based on IDF equation and coefficients provided for Indianapolis, IN.) TABLE 201-3: Rainfall Depths for Various Return Periods PROJECT: BY: DATE: Entity: 10-Year 10-Year Invert Drop 0.1 5 (dc+D)/2 10-Year 0.5 50% CASTING SEWER HGL CASTING SEWER HGL AREA AREA 10-Year 10-Year 10-Year 10-Year 10-Year 10-Year U.S. D.S. U.S. D.S. (ft) (acres) (acres) (min)(min) (in/hr) (in/hr) (in/hr) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (in) (%) (cfs) (ft/sec) (ft/sec) (ft/sec) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)(ft) (ft) (ft)(ft.) (ft.) D12 D11 128.685 RCP 0.85 0.45 - - 5.00 0.38 0.38 0.38 5.00 6.12 6.12 6.12 2.34 2.34 2.34 15 0.25 0.013 3.23 2.63 2.87 2.87 818.50 819.32 814.90 814.58 - TRENCH DRAIN R-1772 - - 0.00 816.89 816.15 D33 D11 116.172 RCP 0.85 0.03 5.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 5.00 6.12 6.12 6.12 0.16 0.16 0.16 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 1.57 1.57 820.27 819.32 816.39 815.98 1.40 TYPE ''A'' INLET R-3010 0.00 0.09 0.09 817.01 817.39 D11 D10 114.016 RCP 0.85 0.16 - - 5.00 0.14 0.14 0.54 5.81 6.12 5.97 5.97 0.83 3.25 3.25 18 0.25 0.013 5.25 2.97 3.13 3.13 819.32 819.74 814.48 814.20 -TYPE ''C'' MANHOLE R-3010 0.12 0.25 0.25 816.41 815.98 D10 D9 54.407 RCP 0.85 0.46 - - 5.00 0.39 0.39 0.94 6.45 6.12 5.86 5.86 2.39 5.48 5.48 24 0.20 0.013 10.12 3.22 3.28 3.28 819.74 819.72 814.10 813.99 -TYPE ''C'' MANHOLE R-3287-SB10 0.44 0.43 0.44 816.11 816.10 D9 D8 151.121 RCP 0.85 0.19 - - 5.00 0.16 0.16 1.10 6.74 6.12 5.81 5.81 0.99 6.37 6.37 24 0.20 0.013 10.12 3.22 3.40 3.40 819.72 820.15 813.89 813.59 -TYPE ''C'' MANHOLE R-3010 0.17 0.28 0.28 816.00 815.89 D8 D7 150.836 RCP 0.85 0.21 0.90 0.10 5.00 0.18 0.27 1.37 7.52 6.12 5.67 5.67 1.09 7.74 7.74 24 0.20 0.013 10.12 3.22 3.55 3.55 820.15 819.94 813.49 813.18 -TYPE ''C'' MANHOLE R-3010 0.21 0.30 0.30 815.69 815.49 D7 D6 119.637 RCP 0.85 0.41 - - 5.00 0.35 0.35 1.71 8.30 6.12 5.53 5.53 2.13 9.47 9.47 24 0.20 0.013 10.12 3.22 3.66 3.66 819.94 819.79 813.08 812.84 -TYPE ''C'' MANHOLE R-3472 0.46 0.34 0.46 815.38 815.08 D29 D24 40.673 RCP 0.00 0.00 - - 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 6.12 6.12 6.12 0.00 0.02 0.00 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 0.85 0.00 821.60 821.44 818.49 818.35 - TYPE "A" INLET R-3472 - - -818.85 819.49 D28 D24 31.278 RCP 0.00 0.00 - - 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 6.12 6.12 6.12 0.00 0.02 0.00 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 0.85 0.00 821.60 821.44 818.46 818.35 - TYPE "A" INLET R-3472 - - -818.85 819.46 D24 D23 65.996 RCP 0.00 0.00 - - 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.25 6.12 6.07 6.07 0.00 0.04 0.00 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 1.05 0.00 821.44 821.43 818.25 818.02 - TYPE "C" MANHOLE R-1772 - - -818.52 819.25 D27 D23 31.278 RCP 0.00 0.00 - - 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 6.12 6.12 6.12 0.00 0.02 0.00 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 0.85 0.00 821.60 821.43 818.42 818.32 0.30 TYPE "A" INLET R-3472 - - -818.82 819.42 D26 D23 40.673 RCP 0.00 0.00 - - 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 6.12 6.12 6.12 0.00 0.02 0.00 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 0.85 0.00 821.60 821.43 818.46 818.32 0.30 TYPE "A" INLET R-3472 - - -818.82 819.46 D23 D22 101.377 RCP 0.00 0.00 - - 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.66 6.12 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 1.29 0.00 821.43 821.40 817.92 817.56 0.60 TYPE "C" MANHOLE R-1772 - - -818.06 818.92 D25 D22 47.985 RCP 0.00 0.00 - - 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 6.12 6.12 6.12 0.00 0.89 0.00 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 2.57 0.00 820.67 821.40 817.13 816.96 - TYPE "A" INLET R-3472 - - -817.46 818.13 D22 D21 24.881 RCP 0.00 0.00 - - 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.29 6.12 5.89 5.89 0.00 0.97 0.00 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 2.63 0.00 821.40 821.13 816.86 816.77 - TYPE "C" MANHOLE R-1772 - - -817.27 817.86 D21 D20 34.049 RCP 0.00 0.00 - - 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.45 6.12 5.86 5.86 0.00 0.97 0.00 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 2.63 0.00 821.13 821.20 816.67 816.55 - OIL WATER SEPARATOR - - - -817.05 817.67 D20 D32 105.960 RCP 0.00 0.00 - - 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.66 6.12 5.82 5.82 0.00 0.97 0.00 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 2.63 0.00 821.20 820.11 816.45 816.08 - TYPE "C" MANHOLE R-3472 - - -816.58 817.45 D32 D31 7.500 RCP 0.00 0.00 - - 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.32 6.12 5.70 5.70 0.00 0.97 0.00 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 2.63 0.00 820.11 820.02 815.98 815.96 - AQUASWIRL R-3472 - - -816.46 816.98 D31 D30 10.000 RCP 0.00 0.00 - - 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.36 6.12 5.69 5.69 0.00 0.97 0.00 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 2.63 0.00 820.02 819.89 815.86 815.82 - AQUAFILTER R-3472 - - -816.32 816.86 D30 D6 8.000 RCP 0.00 0.00 - - 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.42 6.12 5.68 5.68 0.00 0.97 0.00 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 2.63 0.00 819.89 819.79 815.72 815.69 2.85 TYPE ''A'' INLET R-3472 - - -816.19 816.72 D6 D5 74.262 RCP 0.85 0.56 - - 5.00 0.48 0.48 2.19 8.92 6.12 5.41 5.41 2.91 11.86 11.86 30 0.20 0.013 18.34 3.74 3.97 3.97 819.79 819.80 812.74 812.60 -TYPE ''J'' MANHOLE R-3455-C 0.22 0.34 0.34 815.14 815.24 DIRECT TO D5A DIRECT TO D5C 51.508 RCP 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.26 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 5.00 6.12 6.12 6.12 0.00 1.43 1.43 12 1.00 0.013 3.56 4.54 4.29 4.29 822.32 822.10 816.65 816.13 -0.10 CLEANOUT -- - 0.00 818.17 817.65 DIRECT TO D5B DIRECT TO D5C 209.910 RCP 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.62 5.00 0.00 0.56 0.56 5.00 6.12 6.12 6.12 0.00 3.41 3.41 15 1.00 0.013 6.46 5.26 5.34 5.34 821.79 822.10 818.23 816.13 -0.10 CLEANOUT -- - 0.00 819.94 819.48 DIRECT TO D5C D5 163.508 RCP 0.00 0.00 - - 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.79 5.66 6.12 6.00 6.00 0.00 4.75 4.75 15 1.00 0.013 6.46 5.26 5.75 5.75 822.10 819.80 816.13 814.50 1.90 CLEANOUT -- - 0.00 817.30 817.38 D5 D4 61.000 RCP 0.85 0.50 - - 5.00 0.43 0.43 3.41 9.25 6.12 5.36 5.36 2.60 18.24 18.24 36 0.20 0.013 29.83 4.22 4.43 4.43 819.80 820.00 812.50 812.37 -TYPE ''J'' MANHOLE R-3455-C 0.17 0.32 0.32 814.97 815.50 D4 D3 97.000 RCP 0.85 0.49 - - 5.00 0.42 0.42 3.82 9.49 6.12 5.31 5.31 2.55 20.31 20.31 36 0.20 0.013 29.83 4.22 4.54 4.54 820.00 820.12 812.27 812.08 -TYPE ''J'' MANHOLE R-3455-C 0.17 0.31 0.31 814.82 815.27 DIRECT TO D3 D3 156.915 RCP 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.37 5.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 5.00 6.12 6.12 6.12 0.00 2.04 2.04 12 1.00 0.013 3.56 4.54 4.69 4.69 822.42 820.12 817.85 816.28 4.20 CLEANOUT -- - 0.00 819.07 818.85 D3 D2 64.804 RCP 0.85 0.50 - - 5.00 0.43 0.43 4.58 9.87 6.12 5.24 5.24 2.60 24.02 24.02 36 0.20 0.013 29.83 4.22 4.69 4.69 820.12 - 811.98 811.85 -TYPE ''J'' MANHOLE R-3455-C 0.17 0.32 0.32 814.62 814.98 D46 D45 133.297 RCP 0.85 0.13 - - 5.00 0.11 0.11 0.11 5.00 6.12 6.12 6.12 0.68 0.68 0.68 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 2.39 2.39 820.17 821.07 816.50 816.04 -TYPE ''A'' INLET R-3010 0.08 0.22 0.22 817.28 817.50 D45 D44 100.058 RCP 0.85 0.10 - - 5.00 0.09 0.09 0.20 5.83 6.12 5.97 5.97 0.52 1.17 1.17 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 2.75 2.75 821.07 821.07 815.94 815.59 -TYPE ''C'' MANHOLE R-3010 0.05 0.19 0.19 816.68 816.94 D44 D43 104.144 RCP 0.85 0.11 - - 5.00 0.09 0.09 0.29 6.45 6.12 5.86 5.86 0.57 1.69 1.69 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 2.98 2.98 821.07 821.07 815.49 815.12 2.64 TYPE ''C'' MANHOLE R-3010 0.06 0.20 0.20 816.27 816.49 D43 D42 77.607 RCP 0.85 0.11 - - 5.00 0.09 0.09 0.38 7.10 6.12 5.74 5.74 0.57 2.20 2.20 15 0.25 0.013 3.23 2.63 2.83 2.83 821.07 820.88 812.38 812.19 -TYPE ''C'' MANHOLE R-3010 0.06 0.20 0.20 814.03 813.63 DIRECT TO D42A DIRECT TO D42B 198.357 RCP 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.57 5.00 0.00 0.51 0.51 5.00 6.12 6.12 6.12 0.00 3.14 3.14 12 1.00 0.013 3.56 4.54 5.12 5.12 822.00 822.00 816.48 814.50 -0.10 CLEANOUT -- - 0.00 818.69 817.48 DIRECT TO D42B D42 230.856 RCP 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.55 5.00 0.00 0.50 1.01 5.73 6.12 5.99 5.99 0.00 6.04 6.04 15 1.00 0.013 6.46 5.26 5.98 5.98 822.00 820.88 814.50 812.19 - CLEANOUT -- - 0.00 816.21 815.75 D42 D41 113.292 RCP 0.85 0.08 - - 5.00 0.07 0.07 1.46 7.59 6.12 5.65 5.65 0.42 8.25 8.25 24 0.20 0.013 10.12 3.22 3.59 3.59 820.88 - 812.09 811.86 -TYPE ''C'' MANHOLE R-3010 0.03 0.16 0.16 813.83 814.09 D51 D50 89.830 RCP 0.30 0.56 - - 5.00 0.17 0.17 0.17 5.00 6.12 6.12 6.12 1.03 1.03 1.03 12 4.43 0.013 7.50 9.55 6.69 6.69 -- 816.57 812.59 - FLARED END SECTION - - - 0.00 818.82 817.57 D81 D80 29.925 RCP 0.30 0.13 - - 5.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 5.00 6.12 6.12 6.12 0.24 0.24 0.24 12 0.92 0.013 3.42 4.35 2.50 2.50 -- 820.19 819.91 - FLARED END SECTION - - - 0.00 821.00 821.19 RATIONAL METHOD STORM SEWER DESIGN (10-YEAR HGL'S) HGL CALCULATIONS VELOCITY HGL FLOW VELOCITY U.S. HGL ELEV. U.S. STR. CROWN INTENSITYc*A PONDING DEPTH CASTING INLET CUMULATIVE STRUCTURE TYPE CASTING TYPE FULL PIPE CAPACITY FLOW VELOCITY PIPE SIZE PIPE SLOPE MANNING'S N FLOWCUMULATIVE Tc STORM SEWER FREQUENCY CASTING BJ's of Carmel CVS 22-Jun-23 City of Carmel STORM CASTING DESIGN REQUIREMENTS HYDRAULIC GRADELINE FREQUENCY INVERT CONNECTIVITY c MAX INLET DEPTH STORM CASTING DESIGN REQUIREMENTS CASTING CAPACITY FREQUENCY MAXIMUM HEAD (ft) CLOGGING (%) INVERT DROP DRAINAGE AREAUPSTREAM STRUCTURE DOWNSTREAM STRUCTURE PIPE LENGTH c Tc HGL STARTING ELEVATION DIRECT TO INLET PIPE MATERIAL RIM ELEV.ELEV.FULL FLOW VELOCITY INVERT ADDT. DROP ORIFICE FLOW DEPTH WEIR FLOW DEPTH CASTING CAPACITYSTRUCTURE DATA PROJECT: BY: DATE: Entity: 10-Year 100-Year Invert Drop 0.1 5 (dc+D)/2 10-Year 0.5 50% CASTING SEWER HGL CASTING SEWER HGL AREA AREA 10-Year 10-Year 100-Year 10-Year 10-Year 100-Year U.S. D.S. U.S. D.S. (ft) (acres) (acres) (min)(min) (in/hr) (in/hr) (in/hr) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (in) (%) (cfs) (ft/sec) (ft/sec) (ft/sec) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)(ft) (ft) (ft)(ft.) (ft.) D12 D11 128.685 RCP 0.85 0.45 - - 5.00 0.38 0.38 0.38 5.00 6.12 6.12 9.12 2.34 2.34 3.49 15 0.25 0.013 3.23 2.63 2.87 2.84 818.50 819.32 814.90 814.58 - TRENCH DRAIN R-1772 - - 0.00 817.69 816.15 D33 D11 116.172 RCP 0.85 0.03 5.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 5.00 6.12 6.12 9.12 0.16 0.16 0.23 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 1.57 1.77 820.27 819.32 816.39 815.98 1.40 TYPE ''A'' INLET R-3010 0.00 0.09 0.09 817.62 817.39 D11 D10 114.016 RCP 0.85 0.16 - - 5.00 0.14 0.14 0.54 5.81 6.12 5.97 8.90 0.83 3.25 4.84 18 0.25 0.013 5.25 2.97 3.13 3.37 819.32 819.74 814.48 814.20 -TYPE ''C'' MANHOLE R-3010 0.12 0.25 0.25 817.16 815.98 D10 D9 54.407 RCP 0.85 0.46 - - 5.00 0.39 0.39 0.94 6.45 6.12 5.86 8.73 2.39 5.48 8.16 24 0.20 0.013 10.12 3.22 3.28 3.58 819.74 819.72 814.10 813.99 -TYPE ''C'' MANHOLE R-3287-SB10 0.44 0.43 0.44 816.85 816.10 D9 D8 151.121 RCP 0.85 0.19 - - 5.00 0.16 0.16 1.10 6.74 6.12 5.81 8.65 0.99 6.37 9.49 24 0.20 0.013 10.12 3.22 3.40 3.66 819.72 820.15 813.89 813.59 -TYPE ''C'' MANHOLE R-3010 0.17 0.28 0.28 816.73 815.89 D8 D7 150.836 RCP 0.85 0.21 0.90 0.10 5.00 0.18 0.27 1.37 7.52 6.12 5.67 8.45 1.09 7.74 11.53 24 0.20 0.013 10.12 3.22 3.55 3.67 820.15 819.94 813.49 813.18 -TYPE ''C'' MANHOLE R-3010 0.21 0.30 0.30 816.42 815.49 D7 D6 119.637 RCP 0.85 0.41 - - 5.00 0.35 0.35 1.71 8.30 6.12 5.53 8.24 2.13 9.47 14.11 24 0.20 0.013 10.12 3.22 3.66 4.49 819.94 819.79 813.08 812.84 -TYPE ''C'' MANHOLE R-3472 0.46 0.34 0.46 816.03 815.08 D29 D24 40.673 RCP 0.00 0.00 - - 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 6.12 6.12 9.12 0.00 0.02 0.00 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 0.85 0.00 821.60 821.44 818.49 818.35 - TYPE "A" INLET R-3472 - - -818.85 819.49 D28 D24 31.278 RCP 0.00 0.00 - - 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 6.12 6.12 9.12 0.00 0.02 0.00 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 0.85 0.00 821.60 821.44 818.46 818.35 - TYPE "A" INLET R-3472 - - -818.85 819.46 D24 D23 65.996 RCP 0.00 0.00 - - 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.25 6.12 6.07 9.05 0.00 0.04 0.00 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 1.05 0.00 821.44 821.43 818.25 818.02 - TYPE "C" MANHOLE R-1772 - - -818.52 819.25 D27 D23 31.278 RCP 0.00 0.00 - - 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 6.12 6.12 9.12 0.00 0.02 0.00 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 0.85 0.00 821.60 821.43 818.42 818.32 0.30 TYPE "A" INLET R-3472 - - -818.82 819.42 D26 D23 40.673 RCP 0.00 0.00 - - 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 6.12 6.12 9.12 0.00 0.02 0.00 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 0.85 0.00 821.60 821.43 818.46 818.32 0.30 TYPE "A" INLET R-3472 - - -818.82 819.46 D23 D22 101.377 RCP 0.00 0.00 - - 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.66 6.12 6.00 8.94 0.00 0.08 0.00 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 1.29 0.00 821.43 821.40 817.92 817.56 0.60 TYPE "C" MANHOLE R-1772 - - -818.06 818.92 D25 D22 47.985 RCP 0.00 0.00 - - 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 6.12 6.12 9.12 0.00 0.89 0.00 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 2.57 0.00 820.67 821.40 817.13 816.96 - TYPE "A" INLET R-3472 - - -817.46 818.13 D22 D21 24.881 RCP 0.00 0.00 - - 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.29 6.12 5.89 8.77 0.00 0.97 0.00 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 2.63 0.00 821.40 821.13 816.86 816.77 - TYPE "C" MANHOLE R-1772 - - -817.27 817.86 D21 D20 34.049 RCP 0.00 0.00 - - 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.45 6.12 5.86 8.73 0.00 0.97 0.00 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 2.63 0.00 821.13 821.20 816.67 816.55 - OIL WATER SEPARATOR - - - -817.05 817.67 D20 D32 105.960 RCP 0.00 0.00 - - 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.66 6.12 5.82 8.68 0.00 0.97 0.00 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 2.63 0.00 821.20 820.11 816.45 816.08 - TYPE "C" MANHOLE R-3472 - - -816.58 817.45 D32 D31 7.500 RCP 0.00 0.00 - - 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.32 6.12 5.70 8.50 0.00 0.97 0.00 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 2.63 0.00 820.11 820.02 815.98 815.96 - AQUASWIRL R-3472 - - -816.46 816.98 D31 D30 10.000 RCP 0.00 0.00 - - 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.36 6.12 5.69 8.49 0.00 0.97 0.00 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 2.63 0.00 820.02 819.89 815.86 815.82 - AQUAFILTER R-3472 - - -816.32 816.86 D30 D6 8.000 RCP 0.00 0.00 - - 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.42 6.12 5.68 8.47 0.00 0.97 0.00 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 2.63 0.00 819.89 819.79 815.72 815.69 2.85 TYPE ''A'' INLET R-3472 - - -816.19 816.72 D6 D5 74.262 RCP 0.85 0.56 - - 5.00 0.48 0.48 2.19 8.92 6.12 5.41 8.07 2.91 11.86 17.67 30 0.20 0.013 18.34 3.74 3.97 4.26 819.79 819.80 812.74 812.60 -TYPE ''J'' MANHOLE R-3455-C 0.22 0.34 0.34 815.52 815.24 DIRECT TO D5A DIRECT TO D5C 51.508 RCP 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.26 5.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 5.00 6.12 6.12 9.12 0.00 1.43 2.13 12 1.00 0.013 3.56 4.54 4.29 4.74 822.32 822.10 816.65 816.13 -0.10 CLEANOUT -- - 0.00 818.64 817.65 DIRECT TO D5B DIRECT TO D5C 209.910 RCP 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.62 5.00 0.00 0.56 0.56 5.00 6.12 6.12 9.12 0.00 3.41 5.09 15 1.00 0.013 6.46 5.26 5.34 5.83 821.79 822.10 818.23 816.13 -0.10 CLEANOUT -- - 0.00 820.44 819.48 DIRECT TO D5C D5 163.508 RCP 0.00 0.00 - - 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.79 5.66 6.12 6.00 8.94 0.00 4.75 7.08 15 1.00 0.013 6.46 5.26 5.75 5.77 822.10 819.80 816.13 814.50 1.90 CLEANOUT -- - 0.00 817.69 817.38 D5 D4 61.000 RCP 0.85 0.50 - - 5.00 0.43 0.43 3.41 9.25 6.12 5.36 7.98 2.60 18.24 27.19 36 0.20 0.013 29.83 4.22 4.43 4.78 819.80 820.00 812.50 812.37 -TYPE ''J'' MANHOLE R-3455-C 0.17 0.32 0.32 815.36 815.50 D4 D3 97.000 RCP 0.85 0.49 - - 5.00 0.42 0.42 3.82 9.49 6.12 5.31 7.92 2.55 20.31 30.27 36 0.20 0.013 29.83 4.22 4.54 4.28 820.00 820.12 812.27 812.08 -TYPE ''J'' MANHOLE R-3455-C 0.17 0.31 0.31 815.20 815.27 DIRECT TO D3 D3 156.915 RCP 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.37 5.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 5.00 6.12 6.12 9.12 0.00 2.04 3.04 12 1.00 0.013 3.56 4.54 4.69 5.09 822.42 820.12 817.85 816.28 4.20 CLEANOUT -- - 0.00 819.22 818.85 D3 D2 64.804 RCP 0.85 0.50 - - 5.00 0.43 0.43 4.58 9.87 6.12 5.24 7.81 2.60 24.02 35.80 36 0.20 0.013 29.83 4.22 4.69 5.06 820.12 - 811.98 811.85 -TYPE ''J'' MANHOLE R-3455-C 0.17 0.32 0.32 814.96 814.98 D46 D45 133.297 RCP 0.85 0.13 - - 5.00 0.11 0.11 0.11 5.00 6.12 6.12 9.12 0.68 0.68 1.01 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 2.39 2.65 820.17 821.07 816.50 816.04 -TYPE ''A'' INLET R-3010 0.08 0.22 0.22 817.45 817.50 D45 D44 100.058 RCP 0.85 0.10 - - 5.00 0.09 0.09 0.20 5.83 6.12 5.97 8.90 0.52 1.17 1.74 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 2.75 3.00 821.07 821.07 815.94 815.59 -TYPE ''C'' MANHOLE R-3010 0.05 0.19 0.19 816.85 816.94 D44 D43 104.144 RCP 0.85 0.11 - - 5.00 0.09 0.09 0.29 6.45 6.12 5.86 8.73 0.57 1.69 2.52 12 0.35 0.013 2.11 2.68 2.98 3.21 821.07 821.07 815.49 815.12 2.64 TYPE ''C'' MANHOLE R-3010 0.06 0.20 0.20 816.49 816.49 D43 D42 77.607 RCP 0.85 0.11 - - 5.00 0.09 0.09 0.38 7.10 6.12 5.74 8.56 0.57 2.20 3.27 15 0.25 0.013 3.23 2.63 2.83 2.67 821.07 820.88 812.38 812.19 -TYPE ''C'' MANHOLE R-3010 0.06 0.20 0.20 814.35 813.63 DIRECT TO D42A DIRECT TO D42B 198.357 RCP 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.57 5.00 0.00 0.51 0.51 5.00 6.12 6.12 9.12 0.00 3.14 4.68 12 1.00 0.013 3.56 4.54 5.12 5.96 822.00 822.00 816.48 814.50 -0.10 CLEANOUT -- - 0.00 822.81 817.48 DIRECT TO D42B D42 230.856 RCP 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.55 5.00 0.00 0.50 1.01 5.73 6.12 5.99 8.92 0.00 6.04 9.00 15 1.00 0.013 6.46 5.26 5.98 7.33 822.00 820.88 814.50 812.19 - CLEANOUT -- - 0.00 818.72 815.75 D42 D41 113.292 RCP 0.85 0.08 - - 5.00 0.07 0.07 1.46 7.59 6.12 5.65 8.43 0.42 8.25 12.29 24 0.20 0.013 10.12 3.22 3.59 3.91 820.88 - 812.09 811.86 -TYPE ''C'' MANHOLE R-3010 0.03 0.16 0.16 814.12 814.09 D51 D50 89.830 RCP 0.30 0.56 - - 5.00 0.17 0.17 0.17 5.00 6.12 6.12 9.12 1.03 1.03 1.53 12 4.43 0.013 7.50 9.55 6.69 7.50 -- 816.57 812.59 - FLARED END SECTION - - - 0.00 819.27 817.57 D81 D80 29.925 RCP 0.30 0.13 - - 5.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 5.00 6.12 6.12 9.12 0.24 0.24 0.36 12 0.92 0.013 3.42 4.35 2.50 2.81 -- 820.19 819.91 - FLARED END SECTION - - - 0.00 821.08 821.19 RATIONAL METHOD STORM SEWER DESIGN (100-YEAR HGL'S) HGL CALCULATIONS VELOCITY HGL FLOW VELOCITY U.S. HGL ELEV. U.S. STR. CROWN INTENSITYc*A PONDING DEPTH CASTING INLET CUMULATIVE STRUCTURE TYPE CASTING TYPE FULL PIPE CAPACITY FLOW VELOCITY PIPE SIZE PIPE SLOPE MANNING'S N FLOWCUMULATIVE Tc STORM SEWER FREQUENCY CASTING BJ's of Carmel CVS 22-Jun-23 City of Carmel STORM CASTING DESIGN REQUIREMENTS HYDRAULIC GRADELINE FREQUENCY INVERT CONNECTIVITY c MAX INLET DEPTH STORM CASTING DESIGN REQUIREMENTS CASTING CAPACITY FREQUENCY MAXIMUM HEAD (ft) CLOGGING (%) INVERT DROP DRAINAGE AREAUPSTREAM STRUCTURE DOWNSTREAM STRUCTURE PIPE LENGTH c Tc HGL STARTING ELEVATION DIRECT TO INLET PIPE MATERIAL RIM ELEV.ELEV.FULL FLOW VELOCITY INVERT ADDT. DROP ORIFICE FLOW DEPTH WEIR FLOW DEPTH CASTING CAPACITYSTRUCTURE DATA 170228001 – BJ’s Wholesale Club at Greyhound Commons Appendix E: Stormwater Quality Design WHOLESALE CLUB ONLYMarch 14, 2023 BJ'S WHOLESALE CLUB AT GREYHOUND COMMONSWATER QUALITY BASINS MAP 0'100'50'NORTH Description:BJ's of Carmel Reviewing Entity: Job #: Date:03/14/23 CNwq= PARAMETERS P =1 (in.) Pervious Area 0.23 Impervious Area 5.51 Area 5.74 I = 96% (%) Rv = 0.914 Qa=0.91 (in.) CALCULATED CNwq CNwq =99 1000 [10+5P+10Qa-10(Qa2+1.25Qa(P))1/2] PROPOSED STORMWATER SYSTEM WATER QUALITY CURVE NUMBER - D1 Job Information City of Carmel 170228001 Type II 24-hr 1 Inch-24 Hour Rainfall=1.00"WQv Printed 3/14/2023Prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates HydroCAD® 10.20-2b s/n 02344 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1S: WQv - D1 Runoff = 7.03 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 0.396 af, Depth> 0.83" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 1 Inch-24 Hour Rainfall=1.00" Area (ac) CN Description * 5.740 99 Matches Value from Spreadsheet 5.740 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Matches Value from Spreadsheet City of Indianapolis Stormwater Quality Unit (SQU) Selection Guide Pg. 2 05/10/2022 Version 22 Manufactured SQU SQU System Model Max Treatment Flow (cfs) Max 10-yr On-Line Flow Rate (cfs) Cleanout Depth (Inches) 3-ft 0.85 1.84 9 4-ft 1.5 3.24 9 5-ft 2.35 5.08 9 6-ft 3.38 7.30 9 7-ft 4.60 9.94 9 Hydro International First Defense High Capacity 8-ft 6.00 12.96 9 HS-3 0.50 1.00 6 HS-4 0.88 1.76 6 HS-5 1.37 2.74 6 HS-6 1.98 3.96 6 HS-7 2.69 5.38 6 HS-8 3.52 7.04 6 HS-9 4.45 8.9 6 HS-10 5.49 10.98 6 HS-11 6.65 13.3 6 HydroStorm by Hydroworks, LLC HS-12 7.91 15.82 6 XC-2 0.57 1.16 6 XC-3 1.13 2.30 6 XC-4 1.86 3.79 6 XC-5 2.78 5.66 6 XC-6 3.88 7.90 6 XC-7 5.17 10.52 6 XC-8 6.64 13.51 6 XC-9 8.29 16.87 6 XC-10 10.13 20.62 6 XC-11 12.15 24.73 6 XC-12 14.35 29.20 6 AquaShield Aqua-Swirl Xcelerator1 XC-13 15.53 31.60 6 CS-3 1.02 2.27 9 CS-4 1.80 4.03 9 CS-5 2.81 6.29 9 CS-6 4.05 9.07 9 CS-8 7.20 16.1 9 CS-10 11.3 25.3 9 Contech Cascade Separator CS-12 16.2 36.3 9 D1 Req'd Treatment Flow = 7.03 cfs Req'd On-Line Flow (Bypass) = N/A Plan View SCALE 1:50 Elevation View SCALE 1:50 Projected View SCALE 1:80 2733 Kanasita Drive, Suite 111, Chattanooga, TN 37343 Phone (888) 344-9044 Fax (423) 826-2112 www.aquashieldinc.com Structure #: Drawn By: Scale: Date: OFlores Rvwed Rvw. Date U.S. Patent No. 6524473 and other Patent Pending Aqua-SwirlŠ XCelerator Standard Detail As Shown 2/25/2021 el. Varies Inlet/Outlet Invert el. Varies el. Varies Grade (Rim) el. Varies XC-9 CCW XC-9 STD Aqua-SwirlŠ Polymer Coated Steel (PCS) Stormwater Treatment System 12 in [305 mm] Manhole Frame & Cover Detail For Non-Traffic Areas Only NTS 48 in [1219 mm] Min. Gravel Backfill Concrete Wrap Compressible Expansion Joint Material to a minimum 1/2-inch [13 mm] thickness around top of riser to allow transfer of inadvertent loading from manhole cover to concrete slab. Riser Soil Cover Frame 1/2 in [13 mm] 1/2 in [13 mm] Place small amount of concrete [3,000 psi [20 MPa] (min)] to support and level manhole frame. DO NOT allow manhole frame to rest upon riser. Backfill (90% Proctor Density) 8 in [203 mm] 4 1/2 in [114 mm] Unless other traffic barriers are present, bollards shall be placed around access riser(s) in non-traffic areas to prevent inadvertent loading by maintenance vehicles. Manhole Frame & Cover Detail For Traffic Loading Areas NTS Cover Frame 48 in [1219 mm] Min. Backfill (90% Proctor Density) 3,000 psi [20 MPa] (min) Concrete #4 [13 mm] Rebar @ 6 in [152 mm] Each Way 30 in [762 mm] Riser 1/2 in [13 mm] 4 1/2 in [114 mm] 14 in [356 mm] 1/2 in [13 mm] Thick Expansion Joint Material If traffic loading (HS-25) is required or anticipated, a 4-foot [1.22 m] diameter, 14-inch [356 mm] thick reinforced concrete pad must be placed over the Stormwater Treatment System Riser to support and level the manhole frame, as shown. The top of riser pipe must be wrapped with compressible expansion joint material to a minimum 1/2-inch [13 mm] thickness to allow transfer of wheel loads from manhole cover to concrete slab. Manhole cover shall bear on concrete slab and not on riser pipe. The concrete slab shall have a minimum strength of 3,000 psi [20 MPa] and be reinforced with #4 [13 mm] reinforcing steel as shown. Minimum cover over reinforcing steel shall be 1-inch [25 mm]. Top of manhole cover and concrete slab shall be level with finish grade. Please see accompanied Aqua-SwirlŠ specification notes. See Site Plan for actual System orientation. Approximate dry (pick) weight: 5900 lbs [2700 kg]. Backfill shall extend at least 18 inches [457 mm] outward from Swirl Concentrator and for the full height of the Swirl Concentrator (including riser) extending laterally to undisturbed soils. (See MH Detail Below) 1 1 As an alternative, 42 in [1067 mm] diameter, HS-20/25 rated precast concrete rings may be substituted. 14 in [356 mm] thickness must be maintained. XC-9 inlet/outlet pipe size ranges up to 48 in [1219 mm]. XC-9 chamber height may vary up to 184 in [4674 mm], depending on inlet/outlet pipe size. Orientation may vary from a minimum of 90ƒ to a maximum of 180ƒ. Clockwise or counterclockwise orientation as needed. 2 3 3 2 126 in [3200 mm] 126 in [3200 mm] P48 in [P1219 mm] 2 Octagonal Base Plate P114 in [P2900 mm] 184 in [4674 mm] Varies Varies 5 [127 mm] MH Frame P30 in [P762 mm] Band Coupler by Manufacturer. (as needed) Riser Manhole Frame and Cover by Manufacturer. (See Details) Rim elevations to match finish grade. 112 in [2845 mm] Pipe coupling by Contractor. 12 in [305 mm] long Stub-out by Manufacturer. Pipe coupling by Contractor. 12 in [305 mm] long Stub-out by Manufacturer. 4 4 P114 in [P2896 mm] Optional inlet orientations available (See note 4) P48 in [P1219 mm] 180ƒ Backfill Bedding Undisturbed soil 18 in [457 mm] 6 in [152 mm] Lifting Lugs Lifting Lugs Pipe D2 - D1 Sizing Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method Normal DepthSolve For Input Data 0.012Roughness Coefficient %0.250Channel Slope in24.0Diameter cfs7.03Discharge Results in13.0Normal Depth ft²1.7Flow Area ft3.3Wetted Perimeter in6.3Hydraulic Radius ft1.99Top Width in11.3Critical Depth %54.3Percent Full %0.406Critical Slope ft/s4.03Velocity ft0.25Velocity Head ft1.34Specific Energy 0.761Froude Number cfs13.18Maximum Discharge cfs12.25Discharge Full %0.082Slope Full SubcriticalFlow Type GVF Input Data in0.0Downstream Depth ft0.0Length 0Number Of Steps GVF Output Data in0.0Upstream Depth N/AProfile Description ft0.00Profile Headloss %0.0Average End Depth Over Rise %82.4Normal Depth Over Rise ft/sInfinityDownstream Velocity ft/sInfinityUpstream Velocity in13.0Normal Depth in11.3Critical Depth %0.250Channel Slope %0.406Critical Slope Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 3/14/2023 FlowMaster [10.03.00.03] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterUntitled1.fm8 Description:BJ's of Carmel Reviewing Entity: Job #: Date:03/14/23 CNwq= PARAMETERS P =1 (in.) Pervious Area 0.00 Impervious Area 0.19 Area 0.19 I = 100% (%) Rv = 0.950 Qa=0.95 (in.) CALCULATED CNwq CNwq =100 1000 [10+5P+10Qa-10(Qa2+1.25Qa(P))1/2] PROPOSED STORMWATER SYSTEM WATER QUALITY CURVE NUMBER - D32 Job Information City of Carmel 170228001 Type II 24-hr 1 Inch-24 Hour Rainfall=1.00"WQv Printed 3/14/2023Prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates HydroCAD® 10.20-2b s/n 02344 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 2S: WQv - D32 Runoff = 0.27 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.014 af, Depth> 0.89" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 1 Inch-24 Hour Rainfall=1.00" Area (ac) CN Description * 0.190 100 Matches Value from Spreadsheet 0.190 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.7 Direct Entry, Matches Value from Spreadsheet City of Indianapolis Stormwater Quality Unit (SQU) Selection Guide Pg. 2 05/10/2022 Version 22 Manufactured SQU SQU System Model Max Treatment Flow (cfs) Max 10-yr On-Line Flow Rate (cfs) Cleanout Depth (Inches) 3-ft 0.85 1.84 9 4-ft 1.5 3.24 9 5-ft 2.35 5.08 9 6-ft 3.38 7.30 9 7-ft 4.60 9.94 9 Hydro International First Defense High Capacity 8-ft 6.00 12.96 9 HS-3 0.50 1.00 6 HS-4 0.88 1.76 6 HS-5 1.37 2.74 6 HS-6 1.98 3.96 6 HS-7 2.69 5.38 6 HS-8 3.52 7.04 6 HS-9 4.45 8.9 6 HS-10 5.49 10.98 6 HS-11 6.65 13.3 6 HydroStorm by Hydroworks, LLC HS-12 7.91 15.82 6 XC-2 0.57 1.16 6 XC-3 1.13 2.30 6 XC-4 1.86 3.79 6 XC-5 2.78 5.66 6 XC-6 3.88 7.90 6 XC-7 5.17 10.52 6 XC-8 6.64 13.51 6 XC-9 8.29 16.87 6 XC-10 10.13 20.62 6 XC-11 12.15 24.73 6 XC-12 14.35 29.20 6 AquaShield Aqua-Swirl Xcelerator1 XC-13 15.53 31.60 6 CS-3 1.02 2.27 9 CS-4 1.80 4.03 9 CS-5 2.81 6.29 9 CS-6 4.05 9.07 9 CS-8 7.20 16.1 9 CS-10 11.3 25.3 9 Contech Cascade Separator CS-12 16.2 36.3 9 D32 Req'd Treatment Flow = 0.27 cfs Req'd On-Line Flow (Bypass) = Q = CIA = 0.9*6.12 in/hr*0.19 ac = 1.05 cfs 4 The sizing table corresponding to the available system models is noted below: Table A-1. Aqua-FilterTM Model MTFRs and Maximum Allowable Drainage Area. 1. Calculated based on 0.0177 cfs/ft2 (7.93 gpm/ft2) of effective filtration treatment area. Be advised a detailed maintenance plan is mandatory for any project with a Stormwater BMP subject to the Stormwater Management Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:8. The plan must include all of the items identified in the Stormwater Management Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:8-5.8. Such items include, but are not limited to, the list of inspection and maintenance equipment and tools, specific corrective and preventative maintenance tasks, indication of problems in the system, and training of maintenance personnel. Additional information can be found in Chapter 8: Maintenance and Retrofit of Stormwater Management Measures. If you have any questions regarding the above information, please contact Brian Salvo or Nick Grotts of my office at (609) 633-7021. Sincerely, James J. Murphy, Chief Bureau of Nonpoint Pollution Control Aqua-FilterTM Model Number of Filter Bags Effective Filtration Treatment Area (ft2) MTFR (cfs)1 Maximum Allowable Drainage Area (acres) AF-2.1 12 12 0.21 0.21 AF-3.2 24 24 0.42 0.42 AF-4.3 36 36 0.64 0.63 AF-5.4 48 48 0.85 0.84 AF-6.5 60 60 1.06 1.05 AF-7.6 72 72 1.27 1.26 AF-7.7 84 84 1.49 1.47 AF-8.8 96 96 1.70 1.68 AF-8.9 108 108 1.91 1.89 AF-8.10 120 120 2.12 2.10 AF-8.11 132 132 2.34 2.31 AF-9.12 144 144 2.55 2.52 AF-9.13 156 156 2.76 2.73 AF-10.14 168 168 2.97 2.94 AF-10.15 180 180 3.19 3.15 AF-10.16 192 192 3.40 3.36 AF-11.17 204 204 3.61 3.57 AF-11.18 216 216 3.82 3.78 AF-12.10 Twin 240 240 4.25 4.20 AF-12.11 Twin 264 264 4.67 4.62 AF-13.12 Twin 288 288 5.10 5.04 AF-13.13 Twin 312 312 5.52 5.46 NJDEP SIZING CHART DATED 07/12/2018 D32 Req'd Treatment Flow = 0.27 cfs Plan View SCALE 1:40 Elevation View SCALE 1:40 Projected View SCALE 1:70 2733 Kanasita Drive, Suite 111, Chattanooga, TN 37343 Phone (888) 344-9044 Fax (423) 826-2112 www.aquashieldinc.com Structure #: Drawn By: Scale: Date: OFlores Rvwed Rvw. Date U.S. Patent No. 6524473 and other Patent Pending Aqua-SwirlŠ XCelerator Standard Detail As Shown 2/24/2021 el. Varies Inlet/Outlet Invert el. Varies el. Varies Grade (Rim) el. Varies XC-2 CCW XC-2 STD Aqua-SwirlŠ Polymer Coated Steel (PCS) Stormwater Treatment System 12 in [305 mm] Manhole Frame & Cover Detail For Non-Traffic Areas Only NTS 48 in [1219 mm] Min. Gravel Backfill Concrete Wrap Compressible Expansion Joint Material to a minimum 1/2-inch [13 mm] thickness around top of riser to allow transfer of inadvertent loading from manhole cover to concrete slab. Riser Soil Cover Frame 1/2 in [13 mm] 1/2 in [13 mm] Place small amount of concrete [3,000 psi [20 MPa] (min)] to support and level manhole frame. DO NOT allow manhole frame to rest upon riser. Backfill (90% Proctor Density) 8 in [203 mm] 4 1/2 in [114 mm] Unless other traffic barriers are present, bollards shall be placed around access riser(s) in non-traffic areas to prevent inadvertent loading by maintenance vehicles. Manhole Frame & Cover Detail For Traffic Loading Areas NTS Cover Frame 48 in [1219 mm] Min. Backfill (90% Proctor Density) 3,000 psi [20 MPa] (min) Concrete #4 [13 mm] Rebar @ 6 in [152 mm] Each Way 30 in [762 mm] Riser 1/2 in [13 mm] 4 1/2 in [114 mm] 14 in [356 mm] 1/2 in [13 mm] Thick Expansion Joint Material If traffic loading (HS-25) is required or anticipated, a 4-foot [1.22 m] diameter, 14-inch [356 mm] thick reinforced concrete pad must be placed over the Stormwater Treatment System Riser to support and level the manhole frame, as shown. The top of riser pipe must be wrapped with compressible expansion joint material to a minimum 1/2-inch [13 mm] thickness to allow transfer of wheel loads from manhole cover to concrete slab. Manhole cover shall bear on concrete slab and not on riser pipe. The concrete slab shall have a minimum strength of 3,000 psi [20 MPa] and be reinforced with #4 [13 mm] reinforcing steel as shown. Minimum cover over reinforcing steel shall be 1-inch [25 mm]. Top of manhole cover and concrete slab shall be level with finish grade. Please see accompanied Aqua-SwirlŠ specification notes. See Site Plan for actual System orientation. Approximate dry (pick) weight: 1000 lbs [500 kg]. Backfill shall extend at least 18 inches [457 mm] outward from Swirl Concentrator and for the full height of the Swirl Concentrator (including riser) extending laterally to undisturbed soils. (See MH Detail Below) 1 1 As an alternative, 42 in [1067 mm] diameter, HS-20/25 rated precast concrete rings may be substituted. 14 in [356 mm] thickness must be maintained. XC-2 inlet/outlet pipe size ranges up to 15 in [381 mm]. XC-2 chamber height may vary up to 64 in [1626 mm], depending on inlet/outlet pipe size. Orientation may vary from a minimum of 90ƒ to a maximum of 180ƒ. Clockwise or counterclockwise orientation as needed. 2 3 3 2 42 in [1067 mm] 42 in [1067 mm] P15 in [P381 mm] 2 Octagonal Base Plate P30 in [P765 mm] 64 in [1626 mm] Varies Varies 5 [127 mm] MH Frame P30 in [P762 mm] Riser Manhole Frame and Cover by Manufacturer. (See Details) Rim elevations to match finish grade. P15 in [P381 mm] 40 in [1014 mm] Pipe coupling by Contractor. 12 in [305 mm] long Stub-out by Manufacturer. Pipe coupling by Contractor. 12 in [305 mm] long Stub-out by Manufacturer. 4 4 Optional inlet orientations available (See note 4) P30 in [P762 mm] 180ƒBand Coupler by Manufacturer (as needed)Lifting Lugs Backfill Bedding Undisturbed soil 18 in [457 mm] 6 in [152 mm] Lifting Lugs Description:BJ's of Carmel Reviewing Entity: Job #: Date:03/14/23 CNwq= PARAMETERS P =1 (in.) Pervious Area 0.02 Impervious Area 2.03 Area 2.05 I = 99% (%) Rv = 0.941 Qa=0.94 (in.) CALCULATED CNwq CNwq =99 1000 [10+5P+10Qa-10(Qa2+1.25Qa(P))1/2] PROPOSED STORMWATER SYSTEM WATER QUALITY CURVE NUMBER - D40 Job Information City of Carmel 170228001 Type II 24-hr 1 Inch-24 Hour Rainfall=1.00"WQv Printed 3/14/2023Prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates HydroCAD® 10.20-2b s/n 02344 © 2021 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 3S: WQv - D40 Runoff = 2.68 cfs @ 11.99 hrs, Volume= 0.141 af, Depth> 0.83" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 1 Inch-24 Hour Rainfall=1.00" Area (ac) CN Description * 2.050 99 Matches Value from Spreadsheet 2.050 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.9 Direct Entry, Matches Value from Spreadsheet City of Indianapolis Stormwater Quality Unit (SQU) Selection Guide Pg. 2 05/10/2022 Version 22 Manufactured SQU SQU System Model Max Treatment Flow (cfs) Max 10-yr On-Line Flow Rate (cfs) Cleanout Depth (Inches) 3-ft 0.85 1.84 9 4-ft 1.5 3.24 9 5-ft 2.35 5.08 9 6-ft 3.38 7.30 9 7-ft 4.60 9.94 9 Hydro International First Defense High Capacity 8-ft 6.00 12.96 9 HS-3 0.50 1.00 6 HS-4 0.88 1.76 6 HS-5 1.37 2.74 6 HS-6 1.98 3.96 6 HS-7 2.69 5.38 6 HS-8 3.52 7.04 6 HS-9 4.45 8.9 6 HS-10 5.49 10.98 6 HS-11 6.65 13.3 6 HydroStorm by Hydroworks, LLC HS-12 7.91 15.82 6 XC-2 0.57 1.16 6 XC-3 1.13 2.30 6 XC-4 1.86 3.79 6 XC-5 2.78 5.66 6 XC-6 3.88 7.90 6 XC-7 5.17 10.52 6 XC-8 6.64 13.51 6 XC-9 8.29 16.87 6 XC-10 10.13 20.62 6 XC-11 12.15 24.73 6 XC-12 14.35 29.20 6 AquaShield Aqua-Swirl Xcelerator1 XC-13 15.53 31.60 6 CS-3 1.02 2.27 9 CS-4 1.80 4.03 9 CS-5 2.81 6.29 9 CS-6 4.05 9.07 9 CS-8 7.20 16.1 9 CS-10 11.3 25.3 9 Contech Cascade Separator CS-12 16.2 36.3 9 D40 Req'd Treatment Flow = 2.68 cfs Req'd On-Line Flow (Bypass) = N/A Plan View SCALE 1:40 Elevation View SCALE 1:40 Projected View SCALE 1:70 2733 Kanasita Drive, Suite 111, Chattanooga, TN 37343 Phone (888) 344-9044 Fax (423) 826-2112 www.aquashieldinc.com Structure #: Drawn By: Scale: Date: OFlores Rvwed Rvw. Date U.S. Patent No. 6524473 and other Patent Pending Aqua-SwirlŠ XCelerator Standard Detail As Shown 2/25/2021 el. Varies Inlet/Outlet Invert el. Varies el. Varies Grade (Rim) el. Varies XC-5 CCW XC-5 STD Aqua-SwirlŠ Polymer Coated Steel (PCS) Stormwater Treatment System 12 in [305 mm] Manhole Frame & Cover Detail For Non-Traffic Areas Only NTS 48 in [1219 mm] Min. Gravel Backfill Concrete Wrap Compressible Expansion Joint Material to a minimum 1/2-inch [13 mm] thickness around top of riser to allow transfer of inadvertent loading from manhole cover to concrete slab. Riser Soil Cover Frame 1/2 in [13 mm] 1/2 in [13 mm] Place small amount of concrete [3,000 psi [20 MPa] (min)] to support and level manhole frame. DO NOT allow manhole frame to rest upon riser. Backfill (90% Proctor Density) 8 in [203 mm] 4 1/2 in [114 mm] Unless other traffic barriers are present, bollards shall be placed around access riser(s) in non-traffic areas to prevent inadvertent loading by maintenance vehicles. Manhole Frame & Cover Detail For Traffic Loading Areas NTS Cover Frame 48 in [1219 mm] Min. Backfill (90% Proctor Density) 3,000 psi [20 MPa] (min) Concrete #4 [13 mm] Rebar @ 6 in [152 mm] Each Way 30 in [762 mm] Riser 1/2 in [13 mm] 4 1/2 in [114 mm] 14 in [356 mm] 1/2 in [13 mm] Thick Expansion Joint Material If traffic loading (HS-25) is required or anticipated, a 4-foot [1.22 m] diameter, 14-inch [356 mm] thick reinforced concrete pad must be placed over the Stormwater Treatment System Riser to support and level the manhole frame, as shown. The top of riser pipe must be wrapped with compressible expansion joint material to a minimum 1/2-inch [13 mm] thickness to allow transfer of wheel loads from manhole cover to concrete slab. Manhole cover shall bear on concrete slab and not on riser pipe. The concrete slab shall have a minimum strength of 3,000 psi [20 MPa] and be reinforced with #4 [13 mm] reinforcing steel as shown. Minimum cover over reinforcing steel shall be 1-inch [25 mm]. Top of manhole cover and concrete slab shall be level with finish grade. Please see accompanied Aqua-SwirlŠ specification notes. See Site Plan for actual System orientation. Approximate dry (pick) weight: 2200 lbs [1000 kg]. Backfill shall extend at least 18 inches [457 mm] outward from Swirl Concentrator and for the full height of the Swirl Concentrator (including riser) extending laterally to undisturbed soils. (See MH Detail Below) 1 1 As an alternative, 42 in [1067 mm] diameter, HS-20/25 rated precast concrete rings may be substituted. 14 in [356 mm] thickness must be maintained. XC-5 inlet/outlet pipe size ranges up to 30 in [762 mm]. XC-5 chamber height may vary up to 116 in [2946 mm], depending on inlet/outlet pipe size. Orientation may vary from a minimum of 90ƒ to a maximum of 180ƒ. Clockwise or counterclockwise orientation as needed. 2 3 3 2 78 in [1981 mm] 78 in [1981 mm] P30 in [P762 mm] 2 Octagonal Base Plate P66 in [P1680 mm] 116 in [2946 mm] Varies Varies 5 [127 mm] MH Frame P30 in [P762 mm] Band Coupler by Manufacturer. (as needed)Riser Manhole Frame and Cover by Manufacturer. (See Details) Rim elevations to match finish grade. 68 in [1727 mm] Pipe coupling by Contractor. 12 in [305 mm] long Stub-out by Manufacturer. Pipe coupling by Contractor. 12 in [305 mm] long Stub-out by Manufacturer. 4 4 P66 in [P1676 mm] Optional inlet orientations available (See note 4) P30 in [P762 mm] 180ƒ Lifting Lugs Lifting Lugs Backfill Bedding Undisturbed soil 18 in [457 mm] 6 in [152 mm] Pipe D41 - D40 Sizing Project Description Manning FormulaFriction Method Normal DepthSolve For Input Data 0.012Roughness Coefficient %1.000Channel Slope in12.0Diameter cfs2.68Discharge Results in7.4Normal Depth ft²0.5Flow Area ft1.8Wetted Perimeter in3.4Hydraulic Radius ft0.97Top Width in8.4Critical Depth %61.3Percent Full %0.683Critical Slope ft/s5.31Velocity ft0.44Velocity Head ft1.05Specific Energy 1.299Froude Number cfs4.15Maximum Discharge cfs3.86Discharge Full %0.482Slope Full SupercriticalFlow Type GVF Input Data in0.0Downstream Depth ft0.0Length 0Number Of Steps GVF Output Data in0.0Upstream Depth N/AProfile Description ft0.00Profile Headloss %0.0Average End Depth Over Rise %61.3Normal Depth Over Rise ft/sInfinityDownstream Velocity ft/sInfinityUpstream Velocity in7.4Normal Depth in8.4Critical Depth %1.000Channel Slope %0.683Critical Slope Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 3/14/2023 FlowMaster [10.03.00.03] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution CenterUntitled1.fm8 Model Specific Flow Rate Bottom Area Flow Per Model StormTech SC-310 2.5 gpm/sf 17.7 sf 0.10 cfs StormTech SC-740 2.5 gpm/sf 27.8 sf 0.15 cfs StormTech DC-780 2.5 gpm/sf 27.8 sf 0.15 cfs StormTech RC-310 2.5 gpm/sf 17.7 sf 0.10 cfs StormTech RC-750 2.5 gpm/sf 27.8 sf 0.15 cfs StormTech MC-3500 2.5 gpm/sf 43.2 sf 0.24 cfs StormTech MC-4500 2.5 gpm/sf 30.1 sf 0.17 cfs We therefore respectfully request that _______ evaluate the Isolator Row based on ______ ISOLATOR ROW SIZING TREAMENT RATE = 0.17 CFS/MC-4500 CHAMBER TREATMENT RATE REQUIRED = 9.71 CFS TREATMENT CHAMBERS REQUIRED = 58 TREATMENT CHAMBERS PROVIDED = 74 www.stormtech.com│70 Inwood Road│Suite 3│Rocky Hill│Connecticut│06067│888.892.2694│fax 866.328.8401 Name Title Office February 27, 2012 Address Subject: BMP Application StormTech Isolator Row Dear Sir/Madam, StormTech requests the District’s approval for “general use level” of the Isolator™ Row, which is a patented filtration type BMP manufactured by StormTech, LLC. The Isolator Row is covered under US Patent No.: US 6,991,734 B1. 1.a. Description: The Isolator Row is a row or rows of StormTech thermoplastic chambers that are wrapped in filter fabric and installed below grade. Stormwater enters the chambers and must pass through the filter fabric media where sediments and other contaminants are filtered out as stormwater exits the Isolator Row through the fabric. Some of the unique features of the Isolator Row that contribute to its effectiveness and practicality include:  Vast filtration area – each MC-3500 chamber has 43.2 square feet of filtration area through the bottom filter fabric  Large sediment storage volume  Entire bottom area accessible for cleaning without obstructions within the row  A state-of-the-art structural design that meets AASHTO safety factors for both live loads and permanent dead loads 1.b. Applicable Sites: The Isolator Row can be effectively used for essentially all developed sites. The most common applications are highly impervious sites such as paved parking areas, roads as well as developed sites that include grassy or other landscaped areas. It is not intended to be used for construction sediments. 1.c Isolator Row Approvals: The Isolator Row has been approved on a project by project basis for thousands of projects around the United States. Following are some examples:  In Massachusetts, approvals for the State DEP requirement of 80% TSS removal on an annual load basis are issued at the Conservation Commission level, and the Isolator Row is commonly used to meet this criteria.  In 2004 the Maine DEP approved the Isolator Row based on laboratory testing of 110 micron (US Silica OK-110) particle size  Under the New Environmental Technology Evaluation program, the Ontario (Canada) Ministry of the Environment has evaluated the Isolator row and issued a Certificate of Technology Assessment www.stormtech.com│70 Inwood Road│Suite 3│Rocky Hill│Connecticut│06067│888.892.2694│fax 866.328.8401 1.d. Manufacturer History: After many years developing and providing chamber systems for both septic and stormwater applications, StormTech owners formed StormTech, LLC in 2003 as a joint venture Company to focus exclusively on stormwater. All StormTech chambers are produced in the United States. As of this date, StormTech has millions of chambers installed, primarily for commercial applications within the United States, but installation locations also include Canada, Europe, Australia and the Middle East. The Isolator Row was developed in 2003 initially as a maintenance feature, essentially to capture sediments that could otherwise accumulate in the open graded stone that surrounds the chambers. This open graded stone serves two roles; 1) to provide the important structural soil support of the soil–structure interaction system and 2) to provide open porosity to store stormwater. The Isolator Row was found to be so effective at capturing sediments that many regulators began allowing the Isolator Row as a sediment removal BMP for water quality. StormTech engineering personnel include decades of experience in water quality. Our collective in- house engineering experience includes years with manufacturers of hydrodynamic separators, filter systems, consulting engineering and regulators. For performance evaluations relative to water quality, StormTech has gone to qualified outside researchers such as Vincent Neary, PhD, PE from Tennessee Tech University and Robert Roseen, PhD from the University of New Hampshire. History of Isolator Row Testing:  February 23, 2005 - Tennessee Tech University summarized laboratory testing on the Isolator Row in accordance with Maine DEP testing protocol. Tests demonstrated the following: o 95% TSS overall removal at 8.1 gpm/sqft for US Silica OK-110 (110 micron). o 80% captured on fabric, 15% captured in stone  October 20, 2006 - Tennessee Tech University summarized laboratory testing on the Isolator Row in accordance with New Jersey Center for Advanced Technologies (NJCAT) testing protocol. Tests demonstrated the following: o 60% TSS Removal at 3.2 gpm/sqft for Sil-Co-Sil 106 with accumulated fines (D50 = 10 microns) o 66% TSS Removal at 3.2 gpm/sqft for Sil-Co-Sil 106 (D50 = 22 microns) o 71% TSS Removal at 3.2 gpm/sqft for Sil-Co-Sil 250 (D50 = 45 microns) o 88% TSS Removal at 1.7 gpm/sqft for Sil-Co-Sil 250 (D50 = 45 microns)  August, 2007 – NJCAT summarized its third party evaluation of the Tennessee Tech test results and produced the “NJCAT Technology Verification Report StormTech Isolator Row”. Their verification is summarized as follows: o Claim 1: A StormTech® SC-740 Isolator™ Row, sized at a treatment rate of no more than 2.5 gpm/ft2 of bottom area, using two layers of woven geotextile fabric under the base of the system and one layer of non-woven fabric wrapped over the top of the system and a mean event influent concentration of 270 mg/L (range of 139 – 361 mg/L) has been shown to have a TSS removal efficiency (measured as SSC) of at least 60% for SIL-CO-SIL 106, a manufactured silica product with an average particle size of 22 microns, in laboratory studies using simulated stormwater. o Claim 2: A StormTech® SC-740 Isolator™ Row, sized at a treatment rate of no more than 2.5 gpm/ft2 of bottom area, using two layers of woven geotextile fabric Page 3 www.stormtech.com│70 Inwood Road│Suite 3│Rocky Hill│Connecticut│06067│888.892.2694│fax 866.328.8401 under the base of the system and one layer of non-woven fabric wrapped over the top of the system and a mean event influent concentration of 318 mg/L (range of 129 – 441 mg/L) has been shown to have a TSS removal efficiency (measured as SSC) of 84% for SIL-CO-SIL 250, a manufactured silica product with an average particle size of 45 microns, in laboratory studies using simulated stormwater. o Claim 3: A StormTech® SC-740 Isolator™ Row, sized at a treatment rate of no more than 6.5 gpm/ft2 of bottom area, using a single layer of woven geotextile fabric under the base of the system and one layer of non-woven fabric wrapped over the top of the system and a mean event influent concentration of 371 mg/L (range of 116 – 614 mg/L) has been shown to have a TSS removal efficiency (measured as SSC) of greater than 95% for OK-110, a manufactured silica product with an average particle size of 110 microns, in laboratory studies using simulated stormwater.  September 2010 – The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center released the Final Report on Field Verification Testing of the StormTech Isolator Row Treatment Unit. Testing consisted of determining the water quality performance for multiple stormwater pollutants in accordance with TARP Tier II protocol. Data was recorded for 23 storm events. o TSS median removal efficiency – 83% o Petroleum Hydrocarbons median removal efficiency – 91% o Zinc median removal efficiency – 57% o Phosphorus median removal efficiency – 33% 1.e. Requested Use Level Designation Approval: StormTech requests approval at the __________. In support of this request, StormTech is providing test results from both laboratory and field studies by others that demonstrate that the “performance requirement” is met. Product Performance Claim and Certification 80% TSS removal is achieved by sizing Isolator Rows to treat the water quality flow rate at a specific flow rate not to exceed 2.5 gpm/sqft of bottom area using two layers of Propex 315 ST, Mirafi 600X or approved equal woven geotextile. Model Specific Flow Rate Bottom Area Flow Per Model StormTech SC-310 2.5 gpm/sf 17.7 sf 0.10 cfs StormTech SC-740 2.5 gpm/sf 27.8 sf 0.15 cfs StormTech DC-780 2.5 gpm/sf 27.8 sf 0.15 cfs StormTech RC-310 2.5 gpm/sf 17.7 sf 0.10 cfs StormTech RC-750 2.5 gpm/sf 27.8 sf 0.15 cfs StormTech MC-3500 2.5 gpm/sf 43.2 sf 0.24 cfs StormTech MC-4500 2.5 gpm/sf 30.1 sf 0.17 cfs We therefore respectfully request that _______ evaluate the Isolator Row based on ______ performance requirements. I trust this provides sufficient information on the StormTech Isolator Row to enable your evaluation. However, should you have any questions or require additional information. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Ed Pisowicz directly. www.stormtech.com│70 Inwood Road│Suite 3│Rocky Hill│Connecticut│06067│888.892.2694│fax 866.328.8401 Sincerely, (signature) (signature) Kenneth M. Sanok, PE Ed Pisowicz Senior Engineer Engineered Product Manager Advanced Drainage Systems Advanced Drainage Systems Phone: (860) 861-2151 Phone: (404) 433-7452 e-mail: ksanok@stormTech.com e-mail: episowicz@stormtech.com NJCAT TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION StormTech® Isolator™ Row August 2007 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1 1.1 New Jersey Corporation for Advanced Technology (NJCAT) Program 1 1.2 Technology Verification Report 2 1.3 Technology Description 2 1.3.1 Technology Status 2 1.3.2 Specific Applicability 3 1.4 Project Description 3 1.5 Key Contacts 3 2. Evaluation of the Applicant 4 2.1 Corporate History 4 2.2 Organization and Management 7 2.3 Technical Resources, Staff and Capital Equipment 7 2.4 Patents 7 3. Treatment System Description 7 4. Technical Performance Claims 9 5. Technical System Performance 9 5.1 System Description 10 5.2 Procedure 11 5.3 Verification Procedures for all Claims 13 5.3.1 NJDEP Recommended TSS Laboratory Testing Procedure 13 5.3.2 Laboratory Testing for the StormTech® Isolator™ Row 14 5.4 Inspection and Maintenance 15 5.4.1 Solids Disposal 16 5.4.2 Damage Due to Lack of Maintenance 16 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 6. Technical Evaluation Analysis 16 6.1 Verification of Performance Claims 16 6.2 Limitations 17 6.2.1 Factors Causing Under-Performance 17 6.2.2 Pollutant Transformation and Release 17 6.2.3 Sensitivity to Heavy or Fine Sediment Loading 17 6.2.4 Mosquitoes 17 7. Net Environmental Benefit 17 8. References 18 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Isolator™ Row Profile View 20 Figure 2. Treatment Train with Isolator™ Row 21 Figure 3. Section and Profile Views of StormTech®Isolator™ Row as Installed in the Laboratory 22 Figure 4. SSC Removal Efficiency for 2.56 gpm/ft2 for SIL-CO-SIL 106 23 Figure 5. SSC Removal Efficiency for 2.56 gpm/ft2 for SIL-CO-SIL 250 24 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Results: SIL-CO-SIL 106 Tests 26 Table 2. Reduction of Removal Efficiency with Detention Time 27 Table 3. Results: SIL-CO-SIL 250 Tests at 3.2 gpm/ft2 (July 19, 2006) 27 Table 4. Results: SIL-CO-SIL 250 Tests at 1.7 gpm/ft2 (July 19, 2006) 28 Table 5. Results: OK-110 Tests 28 Table 6. Particle Size Distribution 29 Table 7. Weight Factors for Different Treatment Operating Rates 29 Table 8. NJDEP Weighted Removal Efficiency for 2.56 gpm/ft2 for SIL-CO-SIL 106 30 Table 9. NJDEP Weighted Removal Efficiency for 2.56 gpm/ft2 for SIL-CO-SIL 250 30 Table 10. NJDEP Weighted Removal Efficiency for 4.8 gpm/ft2 for OK-110 31 Table 11. NJDEP Weighted Removal Efficiency for 8.1 gpm/ft2 for OK-110 31 Appendix - GEOTEX® 315 ST & GEOTEX® 601 product data sheets 1 1. Introduction 1.1 New Jersey Corporation for Advanced Technology (NJCAT) Program NJCAT is a not-for-profit corporation to promote in New Jersey the retention and growth of technology-based businesses in emerging fields such as environmental and energy technologies. NJCAT provides innovators with the regulatory, commercial, technological and financial assistance required to bring their ideas to market successfully. Specifically, NJCAT functions to: • Advance policy strategies and regulatory mechanisms to promote technology commercialization; • Identify, evaluate, and recommend specific technologies for which the regulatory and commercialization process should be facilitated; • Facilitate funding and commercial relationships/alliances to bring new technologies to market and new business to the state; and • Assist in the identification of markets and applications for commercialized technologies. The technology verification program specifically encourages collaboration between vendors and users of technology. Through this program, teams of academic and business professionals are formed to implement a comprehensive evaluation of vendor specific performance claims. Thus, suppliers have the competitive edge of an independent third party confirmation of claims. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 13:1D-134 et seq. (Energy and Environmental Technology Verification Program), the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and NJCAT have established a Performance Partnership Agreement (PPA) whereby NJCAT performs the technology verification review and NJDEP certifies that the technology meets the regulatory intent and that there is a net beneficial environmental effect by using the technology. In addition, NJDEP/NJCAT work in conjunction to develop expedited or more efficient timeframes for review and decision-making of permits or approvals associated with the verified/certified technology. The PPA also requires that: • The NJDEP shall enter into reciprocal environmental technology agreements concerning the evaluation and verification protocols with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), other local or national environmental agencies, entities or groups in other states and New Jersey for the purpose of encouraging and permitting the reciprocal acceptance of technology data and information concerning the evaluation and verification of energy and environmental technologies; and • The NJDEP shall work closely with the State Treasurer to include in State bid specifications, as deemed appropriate by the State Treasurer, any technology verified under the Energy and Environment Technology Verification Program. 2 1.2 Technology Verification Report In December 2006 StormTech®, LLC (20 Beaver Road, Suite 104, Wethersfield, Connecticut, 06109) submitted a formal request for participation in the NJCAT Technology Verification Program. The technology proposed, the StormTech® Isolator™ Row, filters sand, and silt sized particles from stormwater runoff from developed sites. It is considered a post-development BMP (best management practice) that is potentially an additional tool to meet the State’s stormwater quality objectives. The request (after pre-screening by NJCAT staff personnel in accordance with the technology assessment guidelines) was accepted into the verification program. This verification report covers the evaluation based upon the performance claims of the vendor, StormTech® (see Section 4). This verification report is intended to evaluate StormTech®’s initial performance claims for the technology based primarily on laboratory studies. This project included the evaluation of company manuals and laboratory testing reports to verify that the StormTech® Isolator™ Row meets the performance claims of StormTech®. 1.3 Technology Description 1.3.1 Technology Status In 1990 Congress established deadlines and priorities for USEPA to require permits for discharges of stormwater that are not mixed or contaminated with household or industrial wastewater. Phase I regulations established that a NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit is required for stormwater discharge from municipalities with a separate storm sewer system that serves a population greater than 100,000 and certain defined industrial activities. To receive a NPDES permit, the municipality or specific industry has to develop a stormwater management plan and identify best management practices for stormwater treatment and discharge. Best management practices (BMPs) are measures, systems, processes or controls that reduce pollutants at the source to prevent the pollution of stormwater runoff discharge from the site. Phase II stormwater discharges include all discharges composed entirely of stormwater, except those specifically classified as Phase I discharge. The StormTech® subsurface chamber system for stormwater management provides underground detention, retention, and storage of stormwater. This subsurface chamber system eliminates the need for surface detention ponds and optimizes space. The StormTech® chamber system for stormwater management can be used in commercial, residential, recreational, agricultural, and highway drainage applications. The StormTech® chamber system is accompanied by the StormTech® Isolator™ Row, which enhances total suspended solids (TSS) removal, as well as provides for inspection and maintenance of the chamber system. The Isolator™ Row is a row of StormTech® chambers that is surrounded with filter fabric and connected to a manhole. The chambers allow for settling and filtration of sediment as stormwater rises within the Isolator™ Row and passes through the filter fabric. The open bottom chambers and the perforated sidewalls allow stormwater to flow in both a vertical and horizontal direction out of the chambers. Sediments are then captured in the Isolator™ Row, thereby protecting the storage areas of the adjacent stone and chambers from sediment accumulation. 3 1.3.2 Specific Applicability The Isolator™ Row can be designed on a volume basis or flow rate basis depending on regulatory requirements. An upstream manhole can typically include a high flow weir such that stormwater flow rates or volumes that exceed the capacity of the Isolator™ Row overtop the overflow weir and discharge through a manifold to the other chambers. 1.4 Project Description This project included the evaluation of company manuals and laboratory testing reports to verify that the StormTech® Isolator™ Row meets the performance claims of StormTech®. 1.5 Key Contacts Rhea Weinberg Brekke Executive Director New Jersey Corporation for Advanced Technology (NJCAT) c/o New Jersey Eco Complex 1200 Florence Columbus Road Bordentown, NJ 08505 609 499 3600 ext. 227 rwbrekke@njcat.org Richard S. Magee, Sc.D., P.E., BCEE Technical Director NJCAT 15 Vultee Drive Florham Park, NJ 07932 973-879-3056 rsmagee@rcn.com Ravi Patraju Division of Science, Research and Technology NJ Department of Environmental Protection 401 East State Street Trenton, NJ 08625-0409 609-292-0125 ravi.patraju@dep.state.nj.us Ron Vitarelli, President Dan Hurdis, Zone Manager David J. Mailhot, PE, Engineering Manager StormTech, LLC 20 Beaver Road Wethersfield, CT 06109 860-257-2150 dmailhot@stormtech.com Christopher C. Obropta, Ph.D., P.E. Assistant Professor Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 14 College Farm Road New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 732-932-4917 obropta@envsci.rutgers.edu 4 2. Evaluation of the Applicant (As provided by David J. Mailhot, P.E. on 1/19/07) 2.1 Corporate History StormTech® was founded in the late 1990s by Jim Nichols to provide subsurface chamber systems exclusively for stormwater applications. Mr. Nichols, a mechanical engineer and entrepreneur, is known for successfully developing a plastic chamber system for on-site sanitary sewage applications and for ultimately creating the market for chambers. Since a primary motivation for engineers and developers locating stormwater storage under ground is often to create more parking spaces, subsurface chamber applications are typically under parking lots and roadways. In these demanding applications, structural integrity is vital. StormTech® recognized the need for a structurally robust chamber and began a product development program to turn this vision into a reality. StormTech®’s product development program spanned more than four years at a cost of over $7 million. Early chambers were thermoformed from sheets of polyethylene and installed in sixteen locations around the country for observation. Although the early chambers performed well, it became apparent that maintaining uniform wall thickness in the product was an important structural concern that could not be controlled using the thermoforming process. So StormTech® moved on, investing more money and time developing the means to injection mold chambers. At about the same time as StormTech®’s move to injection molding, Dr. Timothy McGrath, P.E. of Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger was developing new design specifications for buried pipe under the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). After years of research and collaboration with others conducting state of the art work for flexible pipe design, Dr. McGrath framed the design requirements for flexible structures based on strain limits for long term loads and a time-dependent material modulus. Dr. McGrath’s NCHRP work was adopted by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and incorporated into the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. This design method is now the standard for structures buried under vehicle travel ways. StormTech® seized an opportunity to hire Dr. McGrath as a consultant for their chamber development program. From that point forward, the chamber development would be evaluated under a higher standard, AASHTO. Dr. McGrath oversaw extensive field testing of the buried chambers using state-of-the-art instrumentation. The testing included several shallow cover tests under AASHTO H20 design vehicle loads for various structural aggregate gradations as well as deep cover tests that spanned months in duration. Test results were used to validate finite element analysis models and to verify structural safety factors. The result of the product development program was a chamber that was designed in accordance with the same AASHTO specifications that structural engineers use in the design of highway structures. The product was unique since it was the only chamber produced from virgin, impact modified polypropylene, the only injection molded chamber and, at approximately 75 pounds, was the largest injection-molded, one-piece thermoplastic structure produced anywhere. 5 In 2002, with Jim Nichols as President and David Click as Vice President and General Manager, StormTech®, Inc. began manufacturing and distributing two models of yellow chambers called the StormTech® SC-740 and the StormTech® SC-310. However, StormTech®’s resources were limited to a small force of six outside sales personnel. Although the chamber system was proving to be a more cost effective alternative for underground stormwater storage than competing systems such as polyethylene pipe, it was clear that sales and distribution would need to be ramped up fast to realize the business potential of this product line. In 2003 Jim Nichols and David Click found the perfect partner and StormTech®, Inc. became StormTech®, LLC as the result of a joint venture agreement between two corporate owners. The new joint venture partner was Advanced Drainage Systems (ADS). ADS brought access to an outside sales force of over 200 personnel, field engineers, an established distribution system and a fleet of trucks to move the product. Ronald Vitarelli was appointed President and General Manager and StormTech®, LLC was positioned as an independently operated, privately owned business. Under Mr. Vitarelli, StormTech® is committed to a safe, conservative design philosophy. This is accomplished by strict adherence to national standards. StormTech® chamber systems are not only designed to AASHTO specifications, but the chamber itself is produced to ASTM standards. StormTech® played a key role in driving the development of ASTM F2418 “Standard Specification for Polypropylene (PP) Corrugated Wall Stormwater Collection Chambers.” This standard ensures that each chamber produced meets minimum standards for raw materials, dimensional consistency and overall product quality. The robust design and adherence to national standards separates StormTech® chambers from various other flexible structures and positions StormTech® with classes of established buried structures like reinforced concrete and high density polyethylene pipe. With the creation of StormTech®, LLC, the outside sales group immediately transitioned into a team of Regional Product Managers who provide technical support and management to the ADS sales team. Shortly after the inception of StormTech®, LLC, Mr. Vitarelli brought David J. Mailhot, P.E. to StormTech® to establish a technical department and the small inside sales team was replaced with a technical team comprised of engineers and technicians. David Mailhot brings many years of engineering experience from the flexible pipe industry including work with researchers to apply soil-structure interaction principles to flexible drainage structure design and also includes work with water quality systems for stormwater treatment. The technical team includes engineering for product development and the Technical Services Department which provides CAD services and specifications to the consulting engineers who specify StormTech® chambers and to the contractors who install StormTech® chambers. Also in 2003, StormTech® introduced an innovative yet simple system to capture and remove sediments from stormwater called the Isolator™ Row. Removing the sediments from the incoming stormwater prevents sediments from accumulating in the chambers and in the surrounding aggregate. Since the chamber system utilizes the storage volume in the stone porosity, as well as the volume within the chambers, it is important to prevent any loss of void 6 space. The Isolator™ Row intercepts sediments before they reach the surrounding stone voids and provides a means to inspect and conduct maintenance. The Isolator™ Row is a row or rows of chambers that are completely wrapped by geotextile fabrics. Stormwater is directed into the Isolator™ Row so that flow must pass through the fabric before reaching the surrounding stone. Sediments are filtered out onto the fabric where they can later be jetted out and vactored from the access manhole upstream. Since 2003, StormTech® chambers have gained wide acceptance as a stormwater detention method. The Isolator™ Row is a recent extension of this technology to address water quality. In the spring of 2004, StormTech®, LLC received an award from The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. Structural Plastics Division for the “Stormwater Chamber & End Caps Model 740.” This award was recognition for the sophistication and technology of the mold design for the production of what may be the largest injection molded structural part. 2005 was an important year for StormTech® and for the chamber industry. In early 2005, StormTech®’s significant investment in materials research paid dividends as StormTech® validated a short term materials test for creep modulus determination. This new testing technique enables StormTech® the ability to ensure that raw materials not only meet the initial properties that are commonly measured by resin suppliers, but also the 50-year creep modulus property that is an essential component of long-term design requirement in the AASHTO design specification. StormTech®’s materials research remains an important leg of the Company’s leadership position in the Industry. In the fall of 2005, ASTM F 2418 “Standard Specification for Polypropylene (PP) Corrugated Wall Stormwater Collection Chambers” was passed by ASTM and became the standard for polypropylene chambers and the model specification for the chamber industry. StormTech® chambers are marked with the “ASTM F 2418” designation and with the ASTM F 4101 materials designation “PP0330B99945” as required by the ASTM standard. Also in 2005, Tennessee Technological University completed the first series of laboratory tests for the Isolator™ Row and reported total suspended solids (TSS) removal efficiencies of over 95% for the manufactured silica product, US Silica OK-110. This testing resulted in an approval of the Isolator™ Row as a water quality BMP in the state of Maine. However, currently applications are more limited since the new Maine standards require other BMP techniques. The Ontario (Canada) Ministry of the Environment also has reviewed the IsolatorTM Row testing by Tennessee Tech University and has issued a Certificate of Technology Assessment. Currently StormTech® has 26 employees. Approximately 500,000 chambers are installed around the word in over 2,600 projects. Only a small percentage (less than 10%) of chambers nationwide are being used for water quality purposes. The large percentage of chambers is used for retention or detention applications. The IsolatorTM Row concept with one-layer of geotextile fabric is used on approximately 90% of StormTech® projects. However, historically the primary application has been as a maintenance feature where sediments and debris are captured and prevented from entering the stone voids. In these applications, the objectives are to prevent 7 accumulation of sediment in the stone voids in detention systems and to minimize occlusion at infiltration surfaces in retention systems. 2.2 Organization and Management The Company is headquartered in Wethersfield, Connecticut with ten regional sales offices in the United States. StormTech® is also represented in Europe, Australia and the Middle East. Ronald Vitarelli is the President and General Manager of StormTech®, LLC and reports to a Board of Directors consisting of executives from each of two corporate owners. Other members of the management team include: David J. Mailhot, P.E., Engineering Manager, Susan McNamee, Operations Manager, David K. Click, Director of International Sales & Southern Zone Manager, Daniel Hurdis, Northeastern Zone Manager and Mark Moeller, P.E., Western Zone Manager. 2.3 Technical Resources, Staff and Capital Equipment StormTech® benefits from several technical resources. StormTech® has five registered professional Civil Engineers on staff, three non-registered degreed Civil Engineers, a geologist, a polymer scientist and a construction engineer. Several of the engineers have advanced degrees. StormTech® engineers bring with them decades of experience in buried structures from the drainage pipe industry and decades of experience from the water quality industry. Water quality experience includes design and sales of vortex separators, gravity grit separators, gravity filters and various media filters. The corporate owners lead their respective industries in pipe extrusion and injection molding technologies. StormTech® owns multiple molds for injection molding chambers and end caps. Together with their corporate owners and outside consultants, StormTech® uses state-of-the-art molding techniques and has advanced the industry with their developmental work of materials test methods for the determination of long-term thermoplastic mechanical properties. StormTech® retains Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger, Inc. (SGH) for structural analysis relative to applications and product design. SGH is uniquely qualified in areas of buried pipe design and soil-structure interaction systems including buried flexible structure behavior. StormTech® contracts with Dr. Vincent Neary, P.E., from Tennessee Technological University for water quality testing of the Isolator™ Row. 2.4 Patents In January of 2006, the United States Patent Office issued a patent for the Isolator™ Row, Patent No: US 6,991,734 B1 entitled “Solids Retention in Stormwater System.” 3. Treatment System Description StormTech®, LLC is the owner and producer of two brand names of subsurface chambers that are designed for use under paved and unpaved surfaces for stormwater applications. The brand names are StormTech® and LandSaver. Respective chambers are identical in every way but are branded by name and color. LandSaver chambers are blue and StormTech® chambers are yellow. Identical chamber models are listed below. 8 • StormTech® SC-740 is the same as LandSaver LS-3051 • StormTech® SC-310 is the same as LandSaver LS-1633 The StormTech® SC-740 is 85.4” x 51.0” x 30.0” (L x W x H) and has a chamber storage of 45.9 ft3. The StormTech® SC-310 is 85.4” x 34.0” x 16.0” (L x W x H) and has a chamber storage of 14.7 ft3. The Isolator™ Row is a row of StormTech® chambers (either SC-740 or SC-310 models) that is surrounded with filter fabric and connected to a manhole. The chambers allow for settling and filtration of sediment as stormwater rises within the Isolator™ Row and passes through the filter fabric. The open bottom chambers and the perforated sidewalls allow stormwater to flow in both a vertical and horizontal direction out of the chambers. Sediments are then captured in the Isolator™ Row, thereby protecting the storage areas of the adjacent stone and chambers from sediment accumulation (See Figure 1). Typically, some level of pre-treatment of the stormwater is required prior to entry into the system. Pre-treatment devices differ greatly in complexity, design and effectiveness. Options include a simple deep sumped manhole with a 90º bend on its outlet, baffle boxes, swirl concentrators, sophisticated filtration devices and devices that combine these processes. Some of the most effective pre-treatment options combine engineering site grading with vegetation such as bio-swales or grass filter strips. The Isolator™ Row is designed to capture the “first flush,” and it can be sized on a volume basis or flow rate basis. The Isolator™ Row is designed with a manhole with an overflow weir at its upstream end (See Figure 1). The manhole is connected to the Isolator™ Row with a short 12” to 24” diameter pipe set near the bottom of the end cap. The diversion manhole provides access to the Isolator™ Row for inspection and maintenance. The overflow weir with its crest set even with the top of the chamber allows stormwater in excess of the Isolator™ Row’s storage/conveyance capacity to bypass the chamber system through the downstream eccentric header/manifold system (See Figure 2). This diversion manhole is the only mechanism used to control flow into the system. The Isolator™ Row typically rests on a 6-18 inch foundation of No. 3 gravel overlaid with a woven geotextile filter fabric (GEOTEX® 315 ST – see Appendix for product data sheet). A double-layer of fabric was introduced to address the need for removal of finer sediments in accordance with NJDEP requirements. StormTech® implemented the double layer approach to enhance protection of infiltration surfaces by targeting finer particles for removal. The individual slit films are woven together in such a manner as to provide dimensional stability relative to each other. This geotextile fabric provides a media for stormwater filtration and also provides a durable surface for maintenance operations. In addition, this geotextile fabric is designed to prevent scour of the underlying stone and is designed to remain intact during high pressure jetting. A non-woven fabric is also used for the Isolator™ Row (GEOTEX® 601 – see Appendix for product data sheet). GEOTEX® 601 is a polypropylene, staple fiber, needle- punched, non-woven geotextile. The fibers are needled to form a stable network that retains dimensional stability relative to each other. The non-woven fabric is placed over the chambers to provide a filter media for flows passing through the perforations in the sidewall of the 9 chamber. The chamber has two rows of perforations along the side with the lowest row 2 ¾ inches above the base woven geotextile fabric. As head increases in the chamber, water is discharged through these perforations as it continues to be discharged through the underlying stone bed. The non-woven geotextile fabric provides some filtering capacity for the water exiting the system through the side perforations. Since the majority of the StormTech® installations are detention systems, they are designed to have some type of outlet structure. These systems are installed on angular stone that has a porosity of 40% and the systems are designed to discharge stormwater through this stone bed. The water in the stone bed can either be allowed to percolate into the underlying soil or perforated piping can be embedded within the stone to collect and discharge the treated stormwater. 4. Technical Performance Claims Claim 1: A StormTech® SC-740 Isolator™ Row, sized at a treatment rate of no more than 2.5 gpm/ft2 of bottom area, using two layers of woven geotextile fabric under the base of the system and one layer of non-woven fabric wrapped over the top of the system and a mean event influent concentration of 270 mg/L (range of 139 – 361 mg/L) has been shown to have a TSS removal efficiency (measured as SSC) of at least 60% for SIL-CO-SIL 106, a manufactured silica product with an average particle size of 22 microns, in laboratory studies using simulated stormwater. Claim 2: A StormTech® SC-740 Isolator™ Row, sized at a treatment rate of no more than 2.5 gpm/ft2 of bottom area, using two layers of woven geotextile fabric under the base of the system and one layer of non-woven fabric wrapped over the top of the system and a mean event influent concentration of 318 mg/L (range of 129 – 441 mg/L) has been shown to have a TSS removal efficiency (measured as SSC) of 84% for SIL-CO-SIL 250, a manufactured silica product with an average particle size of 45 microns, in laboratory studies using simulated stormwater. Claim 3: A StormTech® SC-740 Isolator™ Row, sized at a treatment rate of no more than 6.5 gpm/ft2 of bottom area, using a single layer of woven geotextile fabric under the base of the system and one layer of non-woven fabric wrapped over the top of the system and a mean event influent concentration of 371 mg/L (range of 116 – 614 mg/L) has been shown to have a TSS removal efficiency (measured as SSC) of greater than 95% for OK-110, a manufactured silica product with an average particle size of 110 microns, in laboratory studies using simulated stormwater. 5. Technical System Performance A StormTech® SC-740 Isolator™ Row was tested in a full-scale laboratory study by the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, TN. Three different silica-water slurry influent streams were used in the experiment. The first consisted of SIL-CO-SIL 106 with a median particle size of approximately 22 microns. The second consisted of SIL-CO-SIL 250 with a median particle size of approximately 45 microns. For both silica-water slurries, the system was tested at a hydraulic loading rate of 3.2 gpm/ft2 of filter area. The SIL-CO-SIL 250 was also tested at a hydraulic loading rate of 1.7 10 gpm/ft2 of filter area. Finally, a third silica-water slurry using US Silica OK-110 with a median particle size of 110 microns was tested in the laboratory at a range of hydraulic loading rates with maximum rates of 4.8 gpm/ft2 and 8.1 gpm/ft2. The removal efficiencies measured in these laboratory experiments were then used to calculate SSC removal efficiency to verify the claims presented above (See Section 4). 5.1 Test System Description The main components of the laboratory set-up are shown in the design drawings (See Figure 3). Two (2) SC-740 chambers were secured to a wooden frame and laid over a 12-in. bed of No. 3 angular stone (AASHTO M43 #3) with a porosity of 40% contained in a wooden flume with interior W x L x H dimensions, 6.25-ft x 16.22-ft x 3-ft. The chambers were covered with GEOTEX® 601 non-woven geotextile fabric with a thickness of 60 mils and an apparent opening size of 0.212 mm (see attached product data sheet). Two layers of GEOTEX® 315 ST woven geotextile fabric, each layer with a thickness of 20 mils and an apparent opening size of 0.212 mm (see Appendix for product data sheet), were placed at the bottom of the chamber to stabilize the stone foundation and to prevent scouring of the stone base. Both the nonwoven fabric covering the chamber and the woven fabric placed at the bottom provided filtration media for the Isolator™ Row. During testing, the water depth varied upstream to downstream from 3.5 inches to 4.75 inches, with an average depth of 4 inches. Variations in depth of ±20% were due to the roughness and non-uniformity of the gravel substrate underneath the geotextile fabric. An 8-inch pipe fed the silica-water mixture through an expansion into the 12-inch inlet pipe of the Isolator™ Row. The target SSC influent concentration was set to 200 mg/L. A 1.5 lb/gal silica-water slurry was introduced to the 8-inch pipe from a 35-gallon mixing tank using a Watson-Marlow 323S/RL (220 rpm) pump. The silica–water slurry enters a 3/8″ feed tap located 10 inches upstream of a butterfly valve, which introduces turbulence and promotes uniform mixing of the influent stream. The Isolator™ Row resides in the recirculating flume, which collects and drains water discharged by the chamber to the stone substrate through an 8- inch drain that discharges to the laboratory trench and sump. The water was recirculated with a 25 horsepower Allis Chalmers (model AC7V) variable speed pump. A 1-micron filter, designed for flows up to 1.5 cfs, was placed at the end of the outlet, which was intended to trap all sediment that was not removed by the chambers. For the OK-110 testing, the chambers were covered with Mirafli 160N non-woven geotextile fabric, meeting AASHTO M288 Class 2 standards. The Mirafli 160N geotextile has an apparent opening size of 0.212 mm. Mirafli 600X woven geotextile fabric, which meets ASSHTO’s M288 Class 1 requirements, was placed at the bottom of the chamber to stabilize the stone foundation and to prevent scouring of the stone base. The Miralfi 600X fabric has an apparent opening size of 0.425 mm (see Appendix for product data sheet). Flow rates were measured with a Thermo Electron Corporation Polysonic DCT 7088 portable digital correlation transit time flow meter placed on the 8″ aluminum water line. The DCT 7088 was factory calibrated by the manufacturer and was guaranteed accurate to ±0.5%. The removal efficiency, η, for the Isolator™ Row was calculated as: 11 100xSSC SSCSSC Influent EffluentInfluent−=η where SSC is the suspended sediment concentration of the influent and the effluent grab samples, which were staggered by one detention time. 5.2 Procedure Test runs for both SIL-CO-SIL 106 and SIL-CO-SIL 250 were completed at a treatment flow rate of 180 gpm (0.4 cfs), which corresponds to a hydraulic loading rate of 3.2 gpm/ft2. Five (5) test runs were completed with SIL-CO-SIL 106 silica slurry. One (1) test run was completed with a SIL-CO-SIL 250 silica-water slurry. Additionally one (1) test run was completed with a SIL-CO-SIL 250 silica-water slurry at a treatment flow rate of 94 gpm (0.21 cfs), which corresponds to a hydraulic loading rate of 1.7 gpm/ft2. All tests lasted fifteen detention times with sampling beginning after three detention times. Flow rates were regulated by an inlet valve. Test runs for the OK-110 were completed at a range of treatment flows from 44.9 to 539 gpm (0.1 to 1.2 cfs), which corresponds to hydraulic loading rates of 0.4 to 4.8 gpm/ft2. This experiment used four of the StormTech® Isolator™ Chambers. The experiment was then modified using two chambers with a maximum design hydraulic loading rate of 8.1 gpm/ft2. Since the system was half the size (two chambers instead of four), the experiment could be run at higher flows. Table 1 includes the results for the SIL-CO-SIL 106 test runs. The influent concentrations were generally above the target concentration of 200 mg/L, which suggests that the one-micron filter sock at the outlet was only partially effective at trapping the finer SIL-CO-SIL 106 particles. This was supported by visual observations, which noted that the trench went from clear to cloudy in less than one detention time. The average influent concentration was 270±59 mg/L, with a minimum value of 139 mg/L and a maximum value of 361 mg/L. The average effluent concentration was 109±35 mg/L, with a minimum value of 66 mg/L and a maximum value of 182 mg/L. Table 2 shows how the average removal efficiency decreased on average with detention time during each test run as a result of recirculation. The removal efficiencies were calculated by averaging all influent and effluent samples with the same sample number, respectively (e.g., all influent samples with sample No. 1 and all effluent samples with sample No. 2). The results indicate that at the beginning of the test recirculation did not significantly increase influent concentrations above the target level of 200 mg/L. The average influent concentration for sample No. 1 was 219 mg/L. In addition, as discussed below, one can speculate that the recirculation of predominantly fine particles has not reduced the particle size distribution of the influent significantly. Under these conditions, the average removal efficiency (based solely on the first samples of each test run) is 66%. However, as the test progresses and recirculation of fines increases, the removal efficiency is reduced. 12 During the SIL-CO-SIL 106 tests, grab samples of the effluent were collected and sent to the laboratory for grain size analysis. These analyses indicated that the effluent sediments consisted mainly of very fine particles, 84% of which were 10 microns or smaller. The observed variability in the influent and effluent concentrations was mainly due to the recirculation of fine grained particles not trapped by the filter sock. It was apparent starting with the first test (9-July) that the filter sock was not effective at trapping the fine effluent sediments and preventing their recirculation. As a result, there is a trend of increasing influent and effluent SSC concentrations with increasing detention time during each test run. Additionally, sediments occluded within the woven fabric and trapped in the gravel cannot be removed between each test run. As a result, the initial condition cannot be reestablished once testing has begun, and the sediments trapped in previous test runs may washout, raising effluent and influent SSC concentrations at latter test runs. One potential benefit of sediment occlusion and deposition over time may be increased removal efficiency as the geotextile fabric clogs and a filter cake develops on the Isolator™ Row bottom. (Note: The depth of accumulated sediment varies along the bottom of the Isolator™ Row.) Eventually, however, the cake will begin to reduce the flow through the bottom fabric and direct more flow through the chamber sides. Note that removal efficiencies were calculated using the “indirect method” only, which relies on influent and effluent concentrations. The material trapped in the isolator row was intentionally not removed to allow the filter cake to develop with time. A rough estimate can be made by determining the total amount of sediment influent and effluent mass over the testing period. The difference is the amount trapped on the surface of the geotextile fabric, occluded in the fabric, and within the gravel substrate. A rough estimate indicates that about 50% of the total sediment trapped was on the surface of the fabric, with the remaining 50% occluded and within the gravel substrate. Furthermore, the above “50%-50%” estimate is in fact an estimate for only the fine particle test runs since the testing was by indirect method and the sediment captured on the fabric is based on a rough measurement of the depth observed on the fabric at the conclusion of testing. The depth varied across the bottom of the test system. Earlier testing of the OK-110 by direct testing demonstrated 80% removal on the fabric. This is significant since the frequency of maintenance is driven very much by the accumulation of larger particles on the fabric based on the measured 80% capture. In the SIL-CO-SIL 106 tests, the water depth varied from upstream to downstream from 3.5 inches to 4.75 inches, with an average depth of 4 inches. Variations in depth of ±20% were due to the roughness and nonuniformity of the gravel substrate underneath the geotextile fabric. Results for the one SIL-CO-SIL 250 test are summarized in Tables 3 and 4. Recirculation of fine sediments was observed and would have reduced the particle size distribution of the influent concentrations below the mean particle size of D50=45 microns. However, particle size analyses of influent sediments were not obtained as was done for the SIL-CO-SIL 106 experiment. The average removal efficiency was 71±14%, with a minimum value of 47% and a maximum value of 82% at 3.2 gpm/ft2 and 88±1% at 1.7 gpm/ft2. Compared to the results for the SIL-CO-SIL 13 106, these values appear reasonable since one would expect higher removal efficiencies when the particle size distribution is greater. The results for the OK-110 tests at a range of hydraulic loading rates ranging from 0.1 to 1.2 cfs (0.4 to 4.8 gpm/ft2) are summarized in Table 5. The scaled experiment is also presented in Table 5 for the hydraulic loading rate of 8.1 gpm/ft2. Two types of influent sampling were conducted during the experiment: discrete sampling and grab sampling. These influent samples are greatly different in concentration. The removal rates exceed 95% for all samples. 5.3 Verification Procedures for All Claims All the data provided to NJCAT were reviewed to fully understand the capabilities of the StormTech® Isolator™ Row. To verify the StormTech® claim for the Isolator™ Row, the laboratory data were reviewed and compared to the NJDEP TSS laboratory testing procedure. 5.3.1 NJDEP Recommended TSS Laboratory Testing Procedure The NJDEP has prepared a TSS laboratory testing procedure, primarily designed for hydrodynamic devices, to help guide vendors as they prepare to test their stormwater treatment systems prior to applying for NJCAT verification. The testing procedure has three components: 1. Particle size distribution 2. Full scale laboratory testing requirements 3. Measuring treatment efficiency 1. Particle size distribution: The following particle size distribution will be utilized to evaluate a manufactured treatment system (See Table 6) using a natural/commercial soil representing the USDA definition of a sandy loam material. This hypothetical distribution was selected as it represents the various particles that would be associated with typical stormwater runoff from a post construction site. NJDEP now requires that filter based BMPs be tested with SIL-CO-SIL 106. 2. Full Scale lab test requirements: A. At a minimum, complete a total of 15 test runs including three (3) tests each at a constant flow rate of 25, 50, 75, 100, and 125 percent of the treatment flow rate. These tests should be operated with initial sediment loading of 50% of the unit’s capture capacity. B. The three tests for each treatment flow rate will be conducted for influent concentrations of 100, 200, and 300 mg/L. C. For an online system, complete two tests at the maximum hydraulic operating rate. Utilizing clean water, the tests will be operated with initial sediment loading at 50% and 100% of the unit’s capture capacity. These tests will be utilized to check the potential for TSS re-suspension and washout. D. The test runs should be conducted at a temperature between 73-79 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) or colder. 3. Measuring treatment efficiency: A. Calculate the individual removal efficiency for the 15 test runs. 14 B. Average the three test runs for each operating rate. C. The average percent removal efficiency will then be multiplied by a specified weight factor (See Table 7) for that particular operating rate. D. The results of the five numbers will then be summed to obtain the theoretical annual TSS load removal efficiency of the system. 5.3.2 Laboratory Testing for the StormTech® Isolator™ Row The results of the laboratory testing that were performed by Tennessee Tech are presented later in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Testing was performed for two different silica-water slurry influent streams at a target SSC influent concentration of 200 mg/L. The tests using the SIL-CO-SIL 106 slurry were performed at 3.2 gpm/ft2, which was set to be 125% of the treatment operating rate. The tests using the SIL-CO-SIL 250 slurry were performed at 1.7 gpm/ft2 and 3.2 gpm/ft2, which were assumed to be 62.5% and 125% of the treatment operating rate, respectively. The tests using the OK-110 slurry were performed for a range of hydraulic loading rates (0.4 to 8.1 gpm/ft2). For the SIL-CO-SIL 106, laboratory testing shows a 60% removal efficiency at 3.2 gpm/ft2 for an average SSC influent concentration of 270 mg/L. Since only one operating rate was tested, the 3.2 gpm/ft2 was set to be 125% of the treatment operating rate. Since other verifications of pre- manufactured systems have indicated that as the operating rate increases, removal efficiency decreases, the 60% removal efficiency at 3.2 gpm/ft2 was assumed as the minimum removal of this system at this operating rate. Therefore, the NJDEP weighting system can be used to determine an overall removal efficiency of the system by assuming that removal efficiency observed at the 125% treatment operating rates would also be applicable for the lower operating rates. Since the 3.2 gpm/ft2 is set to be 125% of the treatment operating rate, the SSC removal efficiency for the system would be based upon 2.56 gpm/ft2, which would be 100% of the treatment operating rate (see Table 8 and Figure 4). For the SIL-CO-SIL 250, laboratory testing demonstrates a 71% removal efficiency at 3.2 gpm/ft2 for an average SSC influent concentration of 211 mg/L and an 88% removal efficiency at 1.7 gpm/ft2 for an average SSC influent concentration of 424 mg/L. Once again, the 3.2 gpm/ft2 was set to be 125% of the treatment operating rate, and 1.7 gpm/ft2 was set to be 62.5% of the treatment operating rate. These removal efficiencies, which were input into the NJDEP weighting system, can be used to determine an overall removal efficiency of the system. Since the 3.2 gpm/ft2 is set to be 125% of the treatment operating rate, the SSC removal efficiency for the system would be based upon 2.56 gpm/ft2, which would be 100% of the treatment operating rate (see Table 9 and Figure 5). For the OK-110, laboratory testing data that are presented in Table 5 were used with the NJDEP protocol to develop an NJDEP weighted removal efficiency for the hydraulic loading rates of 4.8 and 8.1 gpm/ft2 (see Tables 10 and 11). These loading rates were set to be 125% of the treatment operating rate. Removal efficiencies for 25, 50, 75, and 100% of the treatment operating rate were interpolated from the data presented in Table 5. The NJDEP weighted removal efficiencies were determined to be 98.8 and 98.4% for the hydraulic loading rates of 3.87 and 6.48 gpm/ft2, respectively. 15 5.4 Inspection and Maintenance The StormTech® Isolator™ Row requires minimal routine inspection and maintenance. However, it is important that the system be inspected at regular intervals and cleaned when necessary to ensure optimum performance. Initially, the StormTech® Isolator™ Row should be inspected every six months until information can be gathered to develop an inspection and maintenance routine for the particular site. The rate at which the system collects pollutants will depend more on site activities than on the size of the unit (i.e., heavy winter sanding will cause the lower chamber to fill more quickly, but regular sweeping will slow accumulation). The JetVac process can be used to clean the system. However, the JetVac process, as per StormTech® should only be performed on StormTech® Isolator™ Rows that have AASHTO class 1 woven geotextile over their angular base stone. When the average depth of sediment exceeds three inches, clean-out should be conducted. The frequency of cleanout is related to the number of chambers in the Isolator™ Row. StormTech®’s cleanout experience includes systems receiving flows from paved areas that were cleaned in advance of actual need and systems that received construction sediments and were cleaned after a sedimentation event. StormTech® does not recommend that the Isolator™ be used for construction sediments. Where erosion of disturbed sites is possible which could cause sedimentation of the subsurface system, StormTech® recommends plugging inlet pipes to both the Isolator™ Row and high flow manifolds until the site is stabilized and the post development conditions established. A 20-chamber Isolator™ Row in Portland, Maine was cleaned after one year in service. Approximately 1/8” to 1/4” of sediment had accumulated and StormTech® cleaned the system as a maintenance demonstration. Four passes of a jet nozzle cleaned the Isolator™ Row to bare fabric. The nozzle pressure reached approximately 2200 psi. The fabric was not impacted by the jetting. Other experience, for all Isolator™ Rows receiving flows from paved areas, indicates that a 1- year maintenance interval is too frequent. Only Isolator™ Rows that 1) have received construction sediments or 2) received sediments from gravel parking areas required maintenance within the first year. In each cleaning event observed, solids were successfully moved from the fabric bottom to the access manhole and vactored. The solids movement includes both clumps of solids and slurry. Since murky water is produced, it is reasonable to assume that some amount of the clay size particles that go into suspension may be lost through the fabric during the cleanout process. Actual sediment removal is expected to include the larger particle sizes targeted during performance tests and some percentage of finer particles that are moved in the solid cake clumps and slurry that is vactored from the manhole. 5.4.1 Solids Disposal Solids recovered from the StormTech® Isolator™ Row can typically be land filled or disposed of at a waste water treatment plant. 16 5.4.2 Damage Due to Lack of Maintenance It is unlikely that the StormTech® Isolator™ Row will become damaged due to lack of maintenance since there are no fragile internal parts. However, adhering to a regular maintenance plan ensures optimal performance of the system, since filter cake build-up will eventually reduce treatment flow rate through the double layer bottom fabrics. StormTech® has no reported clogged infiltration systems. The typical StormTech® design includes Isolator™ Rows downstream of all inlets with high flow bypasses to the balance of the chamber system. Therefore the infiltration surface is preserved while the Isolator™ Row collects sediments. Flow through the Isolator™ Row bottom material is expected to decrease over several years. As the bottom occludes and head builds, flow increases through perforations and joints which are covered with a single layer of filter fabric. 6. Technical Evaluation Analysis 6.1 Verification of Performance Claims Claim 1: A StormTech® SC-740 Isolator™ Row, sized at a treatment rate of no more than 2.5 gpm/ft2 of bottom area, using two layers of woven geotextile fabric under the base of the system and one layer of non-woven fabric wrapped over the top of the system and a mean event influent concentration of 270 mg/L (range of 139 – 361 mg/L) has been shown to have a TSS removal efficiency (measured as SSC) of 60% for SIL-CO-SIL 106, a manufactured silica product with an average particle size of 22 microns, in laboratory studies using simulated stormwater. • Since the claim laboratory test was performed at 3.2 gpm/ft2 and this was set to be 125% of the treatment operating rate, the treatment operating rate in Claim 1 should be adjusted to reflect the true operation rate (100% value or 2.56 gpm/ft2). Claim 1 is verified. Claim 2: A StormTech® SC-740 Isolator™ Row, sized at a treatment rate of no more than 2.5 gpm/ft2 of bottom area, using two layers of woven geotextile fabric under the base of the system and one layer of non-woven fabric wrapped over the top of the system and a mean event influent concentration of 318 mg/L (range of 129 – 441 mg/L) has been shown to have a TSS removal efficiency (measured as SSC) of 84% for SIL-CO-SIL 250, a manufactured silica product with an average particle size of 45 microns, in laboratory studies using simulated stormwater. • For a treatment operating rate of 2.56 gpm/ft2 and a mean event influent concentration of 318 mg/L (measured as SSC) the data at 3.20 gpm/ft2 and 1.7 gpm/ft2 were used to conservatively determine a TSS removal efficiency of 84% for SIL-CO-SIL 250, verifying Claim 2. The average influent concentration of 318 mg/L is simply the average concentration of the two sets of experiments that were run using the SIL-CO-SIL 250. Claim 3: A StormTech® SC-740 Isolator™ Row, sized at a treatment rate of no more than 6.5 gpm/ft2 of bottom area, using a single layer of woven geotextile fabric and a mean event influent concentration of 371 mg/L (range of 116 – 614 mg/L) has been shown to have a TSS removal efficiency (measured as SSC) of greater than 95% for OK-110, a manufactured silica product with an average particle size of 110 microns, in laboratory studies using simulated stormwater. 17 • Since the experiment was run at 8.1 gpm/ft2, which was set at 125% of the treatment operating rate, Claim 3 is valid with 100% of the treatment operating rate of 6.5 gpm/ft2. The weighted removal efficiency at rates of 8.1 gpm/ft2 and 4.8 gpm/ft2 exceeded 98% so a removal efficiency greater than 95% is valid. 6.2 Limitations 6.2.1 Factors Causing Under-Performance If the StormTech® Isolator™ Row is designed and installed correctly, there is minimal possibility of failure. There are no moving parts to bind or break, nor are there parts that are particularly susceptible to wear or corrosion. Lack of maintenance may cause the system to operate at a reduced efficiency, and it is possible that eventually the system will become totally filled with sediment. 6.2.2 Pollutant Transformation and Release The StormTech® Isolator™ Row should not increase the net pollutant load to the downstream environment. However, pollutants may be transformed within the unit. For example, organic matter may decompose and release nitrogen in the form of nitrogen gas or nitrate. These processes are similar to those in wetlands but probably occur at slower rates in the StormTech® Isolator™ Row due to the absence of light and mixing by wind, thermal inputs, and biological activity. Accumulated sediment should not be lost from the system at or under the design flow rate. 6.2.3 Sensitivity to Heavy Sediment Loading Heavy loads of sediment will increase the needed maintenance frequency. 6.2.4 Mosquitoes Although the StormTech® Isolator™ Row normally drain completely, designs may include standing water in a sump in the diversion manhole, which can be a breeding site for mosquitoes. StormTech® advises that the sump is not a necessity for proper Isolator™ Row operation and maintenance. The sump can be eliminated or designed with drain holes where the intent is to preclude mosquito breeding sites. In addition, StormTech® advises that the stone is designed to drain so as to not leave standing water. Small amounts of water that may not drain due to depressions in the otherwise flat bottom would infiltrate. 7. Net Environmental Benefit Once the StormTech® Isolator™ Row has been verified and granted interim approval use within the State of New Jersey, StormTech® will then proceed to install and monitor systems in the field for the purpose of achieving goals set by the Tier II Protocol and final certification. At that time a net environmental benefit evaluation will be completed. However, it should be noted that the StormTech® technology requires no input of raw material, has no moving parts, and therefore, uses no water or energy. 8. References 18 Christensen, A. and V. Neary. 2005. Hydraulic Performance and Sediment Trap Efficiency for the StormTech® SC-740 Isolator™ Row. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tennesee Technological University. February 23, 2005. Neary, V. 2006. Performance Evaluation of Sediment Removal Efficiency StormTech® Isolator™ Row. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tennessee Tech University. October 20, 2006. Patel, M. 2003, Draft Total Suspended Solids Laboratory Testing Procedures, December 23, 2003, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Innovative Technology and Market Development. StormTech® Subsurface Stormwater Management Technical Resources CD: Product Literature, Design Tools, Isolator™ Row, Project Installation Video. April 2006. 19 FIGURES Figure 1. Isolator™ Row Profile View Figure 2. Treatment Train with Isolator™ Row Figure 3. Section and Profile Views of StormTech®Isolator™ as Installed in the Laboratory Figure 4. SSC Removal Efficiency for 2.56 gpm/ft2 for SIL-CO-SIL 106 Figure 5. SSC Removal Efficiency for 2.56 gpm/ft2 for SIL-CO-SIL 250 20 Figure 1. Isolator™ Row Profile View 21 Figure 2. Treatment Train with Isolator™ Row One StormTech® Recommended Configuration 22 Figure 3. Section and Profile Views of StormTech®Isolator™ Row as Installed in the Laboratory 23 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% % of the Treatment Operating Rate% Removal EfficiencyAssumed Value Measured Value Figure 4. SSC Removal Efficiency for 2.56 gpm/ft2 for SIL-CO-SIL 106 (assuming efficiency does not increase as flowrate decreases) 24 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% % of the Treatment Operating Rate% Removal Efficiency Figure 5. SSC Removal Efficiency for 2.56 gpm/ft2 for SIL-CO-SIL 250 25 TABLES Table 1. Results: SIL-CO-SIL 106 Tests Table 2. Reduction of Removal Efficiency with Detention Time Table 3. Results: SIL-CO-SIL 250 Tests at 3.2 gpm/ft2 (July 19, 2006) Table 4. Results: SIL-CO-SIL 250 Tests at 1.7 gpm/ft2 (July 19, 2006) Table 5. Results: OK-110 Tests Table 6. Particle Size Distribution Table 7. Weight Factors for Different Treatment Operating Rates Table 8. NJDEP Weighted Removal Efficiency for 2.56 gpm/ft2 for SIL-CO-SIL 106 Table 9. NJDEP Weighted Removal Efficiency for 2.56 gpm/ft2 for SIL-CO-SIL 250 Table 10. NJDEP Weighted Removal Efficiency for 4.8 gpm/ft2 for OK-110 Table 11. NJDEP Weighted Removal Efficiency for 8.1 gpm/ft2 for OK-110 26 Table 1. Results: SIL-CO-SIL 106 Tests Date Influent SSC (mg/L) Effluent SSC (mg/L) % Removal 9-Jul 180 81 55 9-Jul 177 100 44 9-Jul 292 122 58 9-Jul 315 147 53 9-Jul 318 162 49 17-Jul 212 72 66 17-Jul 266 95 64 17-Jul 278 135 51 25-Jul 236 77 67 25-Jul 229 66 71 25-Jul 139 74 47 25-Jul 293 87 70 1-Aug 240 70 71 1-Aug 290 124 57 1-Aug 294 144 51 1-Aug 341 146 57 1-Aug 361 132 63 28-Aug 227 74 67 28-Aug 266 67 75 28-Aug 328 137 58 28-Aug 308 100 68 28-Aug 353 182 48 Average: 270 109 60 Std. Deviation: 59 35 9 Minimum: 139 66 44 Maximum: 361 182 75 27 Table 2. Reduction of Removal Efficiency with Detention Time Sample No. No. of Detention Times Influent SSC (mg/L) Effluent SSC (mg/L) % Removal 1 3 219 75 66 2 6 246 90 63 3 9 305 134 56 4 12 311 132 57 5 15 331 141 58 Table 3. Results: SIL-CO-SIL 250 Tests at 3.2 gpm/ft2 (July 19, 2006) Sample No. Influent SSC (mg/L) Effluent SSC (mg/L) % Removal 1 226 40 82 2 169 47 72 3 244 53 78 4 288 67 77 5 129 68 47 Average: 211 55 71 Std. Deviation: 63 12 14 Minimum: 129 40 47 Maximum: 288 68 82 28 Table 4. Results: SIL-CO-SIL 250 Tests at 1.7 gpm/ft2 (July 19, 2006) Sample Influent SSC (mg/L) Effluent SSC (mg/L) % Removal 1 416 27 89 2 407 44 88 3 441 48 87 4 417 56 89 5 441 61 87 Average: 424 47 88 Std. Deviation: 16 13 1 Minimum: 407 27 87 Maximum: 441 61 89 Table 5. Results: OK-110 Tests Flow (cfs) Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2) Influent - Discrete SSC (mg/L) Influent – Grab SSC (mg/L) Effluent - Discrete SSC (mg/L) % Removal - Discrete % Removal - Grab 0.1 0.4 613.8 86.2 1.08 99.82% 98.75% 0.2 0.81 324.4 192.0 2.56 99.21% 98.67% 0.4 1.61 514.6 207.7 3.14 99.39% 98.49% 0.6 2.42 411.8 175.0 3.34 99.19% 98.09% 0.8 3.23 325.4 193.0 2.80 99.14% 98.55% 1.0 4.04 525.6 137.2 1.96 99.63% 98.57% 1.2 4.84 116.4 178.6 3.18 97.27% 98.22% 0.2 0.81 398.2 108.8 1.78 99.55% 98.37% 0.4 1.61 358.8 85.7 1.96 99.45% 97.71% 0.6 2.42 329.5 200.0 3.41 98.97% 98.30% 1.2 4.84 227.5 164.4 2.00 99.12% 98.79% 1.0 (scaled) 8.1 302.0 241.8 11.00 96.36% 95.45% Average: 370.7 164.2 3.18 99.14% 98.06% Minimum: 116.4 85.7 1.08 96.36% 95.45% Maximum: 613.8 241.8 11.0 99.82% 98.79% 29 Table 6. Particle Size Distribution Particle Size (microns) Sandy loam (percent by mass) 500-1,000 (coarse sand) 5.0 250-500 (medium sand) 5.0 100-250 (fine sand) 30.0 50-100 (very fine sand) 15.0 2-50 (silt) (8-50 µm, 25%) (2-8 µm, 15%)* 1-2 (clay) 5.0 Notes: Recommended density of particles ≤2.65 g/cm3 *The 8 µm diameter is the boundary between very fine silt and fine silt according to the definition of American Geophysical Union. The reference for this division/classification is: Lane, E. W., et al. (1947). "Report of the Subcommittee on Sediment Terminology," Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 936-938. Table 7. Weight Factors for Different Treatment Operating Rates Treatment operating rate Weight factor 25% 0.25 50% 0.30 75% 0.20 100% 0.15 125% 0.10 Notes: Weight factors were based upon the average annual distribution of runoff volumes in New Jersey and the assumed similarity with the distribution of runoff peaks. This runoff volume distribution was based upon accepted computation methods for small storm hydrology and a statistical analysis of 52 years of daily rainfall data at 92 rainfall gages. 30 Table 8. NJDEP Weighted Removal Efficiency for 2.56 gpm/ft2 for SIL-CO-SIL 106 (assuming efficiency does not increase as flowrate decreases) Treatment Operating Rate NJDEP Weight Factor Loading Rate (gpm/ft2) % SSC Removal NJDEP Weighted % Removal 25% 0.25 0.64 60 15 50% 0.30 1.28 60 18 75% 0.20 1.92 60 12 100% 0.15 2.56 60 9 125% 0.10 3.20 60 6 Total: 60 Table 9. NJDEP Weighted Removal Efficiency for 2.56 gpm/ft2 for SIL-CO-SIL 250 Treatment Operating Rate NJDEP Weight Factor Loading Rate (gpm/ft2) % SSC Removal NJDEP Weighted % Removal 25% 0.25 0.64 0.88 0.22 50% 0.30 1.28 0.88 0.264 62.5 1.70 0.88 75% 0.20 1.92 0.846 0.1692 100% 0.15 2.56 0.778 0.1167 125% 0.10 3.20 0.71 0.071 Total: 84 31 Table 10. NJDEP Weighted Removal Efficiency for 4.8 gpm/ft2 for OK-110 Treatment Operating Rate NJDEP Weight Factor Loading Rate (gpm/ft2) % SSC Removal NJDEP Weighted % Removal 25% 0.25 0.97 98.9 24.7 50% 0.30 1.94 98.7 29.6 75% 0.20 2.90 98.7 19.7 100% 0.15 3.87 98.9 14.8 125% 0.10 4.84 98.4 9.8 Total: 98.8 Table 11. NJDEP Weighted Removal Efficiency for 8.1 gpm/ft2 for OK-110 Treatment Operating Rate NJDEP Weight Factor Loading Rate (gpm/ft2) % SSC Removal NJDEP Weighted % Removal 25% 0.25 1.62 98.8 24.7 50% 0.30 3.24 98.8 29.7 75% 0.20 4.86 98.3 19.7 100% 0.15 6.48 98.3 14.8 125% 0.10 8.10 95.9 9.6 Total: 98.4 32 33 170228001 – BJ’s Wholesale Club at Greyhound Commons Appendix F: Excerpts from Existing Drainage Report